• 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.
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Did you ever consider the Cross River Gorillas? A fairly recent discovery of another large primate.

Why weren't they documented sooner? Did they not exist? If you agree they were there, then all that was lacking was the finding part. The locals had known about them for years. They left them alone because they thought they were "hairy people".

Is it too much of a stretch to admit the possibility of another primate out there somewhere? If you're wrong about a new species of Gorilla, isn't it possible you could be wrong again?
Click to expand...

The Cross River gorilla is a subspecies of the western gorilla. It was first recognized by primatologists as morphologically distinct in 1998. Before that it was assumed, absent any specimen or close analysis, that it was a western gorilla. Once it was determined that behavioral differences were present as well, scientists looked more closely and determined it was a subspecies.

There's a very clear picture of a dead one dated to 1906.

The differences between this case and bigfoot should be obvious, first among these being that no morphology or behavior has been observed by any scientist anywhere.
 
kitakaze said:
I think you are misusing the term "prove." I don't think any serious student of the film would rightly select any feature seen on film and realistically call it proof of anything, expecting that it could be conclusively accepted in general terms. If she suddenly suddenly let fecal matter fly or a glove fell off, OK, but we don't have anything so convenient.

I think that a single two frame gif is not enough data to say one way or another. I know for sure that there is enough detail to see some very unnatural features at Patty's waist and legs. I know that Patty hairy missiles that just from the torso look nothing like real ape breasts. But what is that worth? You see natural breasts, I do not. Patty is a rorschach on legs.
Click to expand...

Kit, by "prove" I use as in "to prove your argument". Not prove or disprove Patty.

There are so many small details that are argued, I'm sure it would be impossible for both sides to accept all points 100% one way or the other.

The two frames show movement to me, so, to me the matching movement of the models breast speaks volumes. If one does not see any movement, then of course the presentation is of no use to them.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
newone4.gif
Click to expand...

It could be rubber, fur or padding creating that extra fold lateral to the deltoid. Or it could be poor knowledge of anatomy on the part of the suitmaker. It's hard to say.

I tend to be of the opinion that whoever made the suit had a pretty good working knowledge of human muscular anatomy -- at least where the arm and back are concerned -- but that the fur overlaying it and the padding beneath it obscures the otherwise correct physiological detail.

The so-called "donuts" of the arms are a product of the rounding effect inherent in foreshortening. You can see this in your own arm if you aim it towards yourself in a mirror. The shapes of your arm become rounded as they move toward a plane parallel with your eyeline.

But so what? None of this means anything. It's all just artist speak, and I'm muddying the waters. The PG figure is a dude in a suit, end of.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
The two frames show movement to me
Click to expand...

Do you acknowledge that because of the limitations of the film, that at best, this is a very fragile assertion?

Yes or no. A very simple question without strings.

ChrisBFRPKY said:
the matching movement of the models breast speaks volumes. If one does not see any movement, then of course the presentation is of no use to them.
Click to expand...

For a moment, for arguments sake, if I accept that the breasts are moving in those 2 frames, the movement is not even close to the same as the real breasts in Munns demonstration. The demonstration seems entirely useless to me, because first of all, you don't know how far Patty is away from the camera.. so how can you ever put a real life model in an approximate position? Munns has the camera up close, right on his models chest (it seems) , when it would seem to me that he would want them to be facing to the side and looking back at the camera, like Patty is doing in those 2 frames, as they take a "step" on Munns' amazing contraption.
 
Bigfooters like to use analogy animals like Cross River gorillas, etc. but none really work. But they don't bring to the table all the animals which have been imagined to exist but don't. Count the hits and ignore the misses.
 
STRONG LIKE BEAR said:
Do you acknowledge that because of the limitations of the film, that at best, this is a very fragile assertion?

Yes or no. A very simple question without strings.



For a moment, for arguments sake, if I accept that the breasts are moving in those 2 frames, the movement is not even close to the same as the real breasts in Munns demonstration. The demonstration seems entirely useless to me, because first of all, you don't know how far Patty is away from the camera.. so how can you ever put a real life model in an approximate position? Munns has the camera up close, right on his models chest (it seems) , when it would seem to me that he would want them to be facing to the side and looking back at the camera, like Patty is doing in those 2 frames, as they take a "step" on Munns' amazing contraption.
Click to expand...


First, no I don't think it's fragile. The movement in those two clear sharp frames is there. If one cannot see it, it can only be by choice. But what does it prove?

Second, the P/G film site was laid out and measured. I think they have a good idea of how far away everything need be for judging size etc.

Height and size would have been important for the mask potion of the presentation but that part IMO is not impressive to me. Mainly because there is no way we can make an exact measurement from the camera lens. Close, but not exact. An exact measurement would be needed to size the mask to perfect scale.

The size of Patty's breast is unimportant IMO, the relevant portion is the fluid movement of the shockwave. Which was what impressed me.
 
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