Merged Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 4

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Well, others claim to be doing this (NAWAC) but I fear that bupkis will be the result no matter who or what is doing the . . . research. Need a biological for that, and there ain't one.

That's a strong opinion and I don't blame you. I had to see one myself to be 100% convinced. So I wouldn't expect anyone else to accept that these creatures exist without a first hand encounter under their belt.

Awhile back someone on here said something like I fell into a formula:

1.) started out as a skeptic. That's true.
2.) want people to become a footer get your own sighting. (That's a little off. I really don't care if someone becomes a "footer" or not, it's their choice.)

Everyone can choose to believe or disbelieve whatever they choose. I was lucky or unlucky having seen what I have.

 

[William Parcher]

Just like the Gorilla?

Science has confirmed that the gorilla exists. Some locals have confirmed fairies just as some have confirmed Bigfoot. It's clear that locals confirm all sorts of creatures real and not real.

But we also have locals denying the existence of Bigfoot. I wonder if there were any local forest folks denying the gorilla.

We should only be talking about the PGF in this thread, BTW.

 

[The Shrike]

Just like the Gorilla?

Please don't tell me you think there's a legitimate parallel between the European collection and description of gorillas and the complete lack of anyone anywhere in the world collecting and describing a bigfoot/yeti.

If you do think this then please do be prepared to support your case. (Hint: I've looked into this quite a bit, so you're probably going to need a completely different set of facts about the description of gorillas than I have found.)

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Bullpucky. The whole point is that we are able to use comparative anatomy to predict the underlying musculature of animals that engage in specific forms of locomotion. If one could not do this, then no physician could have ever passed Vert Morph.

The vastus lateralis is on the side of the thigh. The "knee pit" is behind the leg. Those two structures must be oriented at roughly right angles to each other. In "Patty" they are not: the knee pit appears to face the camera at the same time the side of the thigh faces the camera. That can't be with a bipedal leg that bends back at the knee such that the heel ends up behind the glutes: as we see in human locomotion, as we see in "Patty's" locomotion, and as evidenced by Patty's alleged footprints. Thus, the structures that we think we see in these film frames are subjective.

You see alot, sounds like you have your answer.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Please don't tell me you think there's a legitimate parallel between the European collection and description of gorillas and the complete lack of anyone anywhere in the world collecting and describing a bigfoot/yeti.

If you do think this then please do be prepared to support your case. (Hint: I've looked into this quite a bit, so you're probably going to need a completely different set of facts about the description of gorillas than I have found.)

I was merely pointing out that the case of the Gorilla is more similar to the sasquatch than fairies and such as were mentioned.

 

[STRONG LIKE BEAR]

I don't place much weight in the BFRO database or their methods. I can't say "How" they exist but they do.

...

Sighting reports submitted to the BFRO are just as good as your sightings. I would say they are even better, because reports that get posted usually have some kind of follow-up conducted, and/or some small measure of "fact" checking (using that term very lightly)

Why do you discount reports submitted to the BFRO in your area of the country?

 

[GT/CS]

I have no idea as to the Northern lights reference. I thought that's what this was, a discussion. Am I not welcome here?

You dodged the question.

Chris are you just trying to screw with us?
You're obviously not interested in a debate or even a discussion so what's the deal?

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Chris, do you realize that your comment about us only having 'opinions' is daft, when you consider that that's all Bill has?

 

[GT/CS]

Nothing conclusive but yes I have made attempts. A internet search will likely turn up what you are seeking.

How about you provide a link?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Chris, do you realize that your comment about us only having 'opinions' is daft, when you consider that that's all Bill has?

Bill's presentation included nude models and specific tests designed to replicate the steps or shock waves thru the soft tissue that the P/G film subject made.

That's no opinion. That's a repeatable test with conclusive results. The P/G film subject's anatomy behaved exactly like the nude models anatomy. How can you possibly perceive that as an opinion?

 

[GT/CS]

Never mind, I think I now understand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkns_6wXyvw

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Also, Chris, my comment about Patty's arse was serious, where can you find an arse like that outside of a Gemora suit?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

You dodged the question.

Chris are you just trying to screw with us?
You're obviously not interested in a debate or even a discussion so what's the deal?

Mostly I've been answering multiple questions as you know. I came here to look but look at #670

 

[GT/CS]

I didn't respond about Munns . Sorry, yes I was under the impression there would be some credible evidence to counter the Munns presentation. There is none, only opinions.

Did you read the posts I asked you to read?
If so, what are your thoughts on those?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Also, Chris, my comment about Patty's arse was serious, where can you find an arse like that outside of a Gemora suit?

Have you even watched the Munns presentation? You need to.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Why, does Bill clarify why Patty is wearing a giant pair of underoo's that would make He-Man blush?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Did you read the posts I asked you to read?
If so, what are your thoughts on those?

I read the entire thread. Perhaps it would be easier if you would quote the posts you wish to discuss. I'm sure that would be acceptable and save lots of back and forth.

 

[eerok]

I didn't respond about Munns . Sorry, yes I was under the impression there would be some credible evidence to counter the Munns presentation. There is none, only opinions.

Munns offers nothing but hot air and bloviation. What do you want from us? Reality is evidence-driven, and as far as we know, bigfoot isn't real.

Hoaxes, tall tales, paranoia, wishful thinking, mental illness, gullibility, contaminated DNA, fake science, questionable forensics, self-interested baloney like Munns'... given the circus of stupidity surrounding bigfoot, it's completely reasonable to assume that no such creature exists.

You're welcome to show us something new if you've got it.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Munns offers nothing but hot air and bloviation. What do you want from us? Reality is evidence-driven, and as far as we know, bigfoot isn't real.

Hoaxes, tall tales, paranoia, wishful thinking, mental illness, gullibility, contaminated DNA, fake science, questionable forensics, self-interested baloney like Munns'... given the circus of stupidity surrounding bigfoot, it's completely reasonable to assume that no such creature exists.

You're welcome to show us something new if you've got it.

See post #670 Munns has created repeatable tests with repeatable results that match the film subject.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Repeatable in what way exactly?