William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,177
Look into my eyes, MK. Is that really you?

Actually, my dog is named dufus. I'm thinking about trading names with him though, he's not nearly as foolish as I am. M.K.
Primateer aka M.K. Davis in the 411 PGF said:photo didn't upload.
The file is too large, but it is very good. Sorry folks. M.K.
Man, you can really see the pain in Patty's eye as she realizes she is about to become a part of the bigfoot slaughter that took place at Bluff Creek.
So sad.....[qimg]http://www.smileyhut.com/sad/crying.gif[/qimg]
Glad to hear that...
Care to answer the questions in my post?
I'll add to them these two questions:
What is your training/experience in conducting investigative interviews?
What training/experience qualifies you to ascertain something is a bullet strike on film?
----------------------
You know Rockinkt, you criticize a man for his opinions and hide behind an avatar name. It’s easy to attack man ad hominem (& hide behind an avatar) than it is to look at his work and decide for yourself what the images show.
Anyman is entitled to his opinion, at least Davis is participating in research; I don’t know what qualifies you.
“Massacre at Bluff Creek”……so what?
Is that pronouncement any worse than the MDF nonsense, the asscast overkill and that ridiculous midtarsal break pronouncement. Come on….
<Snip>
Put on your RCMP harness and look at it from the other side- it gets worse.
<Snip>
I'm not so sure it's either one of those. (mid-tarsel break, or toes bending.)
Here is a sequence of frames from an animated gif. We see the thing that is proposed to be splaying or upwards bending toes in #3 - but then in #4 we see that the same thing is there, but it is ghostly.
IMO, the foot and toes should be already planted flat on the sand in #4, and maybe already even in #3.
I don't really know what is going on here, but it doesn't seem right that that big thing in front is actually the toes (or entire ball) bending upwards.
For once I can actually see what they're talking about.Yep, I`m officially blind when it comes to Patty.
Can`t see bullet impacts, can`t see moving toes, can`t see bulging muscles...
Must be the skeptical effect...
I put frames 4 and 5 together into an animated-gif....
One reason why the toes might appear lighter in shade than the rest of the foot could be that there is some space between the toes, allowing the whitish ground color to mix and blend-in with the dark toes....thereby creating a lighter shade of black...or gray.
As I have pointed out before; those lobes of the calf muscle should be bisected by a line congruent with the Achilles.
They are not.
The line runs off to the right side of the ankle..
[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattysback2.jpg[/qimg]
if that movement (along with the other feature of the foot I had mentioned) can't be replicated with a fake foot, then it's not a fake foot.....period.
If it can't be replicated with a bigfoot foot, then it's not a bigfoot foot.
Heck, forget about replicating it with a bigfoot foot, I'll be happy with a bigfoot foot period. Just one. Shouldn't be too hard to produce. Surely there's at least one Native American who knows the location of a body from just one of these gentle guardians of the forest. Heck, there's a whole family of them buried at Bluff Creek.
Woha slow down Hoss! Gene splicing will get you your Bigfoot a lot quicker!
For once I can actually see what they're talking about.
If you look at 4 and 5 in the above gif you can see Patty's leg rock forward. The angle of her shin changes by several degrees. Looks to me enough to account for the front of her foot being off the ground and then rocking down as she shifts her weight. To me, not only do the toes not do anything interesting, it's like there's no foot articulation at all.
If you look at Patty's calf it may just be a play of light and shadow, or the back of her leg might pinch in, in exactly the way muscles don't. Or it might just be another fold in the hip waders like the anomalous thigh bulge seen in other frames.
It might just be a jiggle of the leg of an unknown hominid
It might just be a jiggle of the leg of an unknown hominid
Except that much of Patty's anatomy is completely unnatural. Plenty of proof of hoaxers, none for Bigfoot.
You're right about that. Casting a spell to summon a bigfoot from the underworld will get one quicker than searching Bluff Creek, or anywhere else on the planet for that matter.
How is it unnatural if skeptics claim its to blurry to make out any details?
How is it unnatural if skeptics claim its to blurry to make out any details?
*psst* Don't tell Sweaty or his Mini Me Makaya. You'll break their hearts.Especially since those suckers are extinct.
How is it unnatural if skeptics claim its to blurry to make out any details?
How is it unnatural if skeptics claim its to blurry to make out any details?
Things like big saggy diaper butt and rock-hard torpedo breasts are not exactly hard to spot details, but are in fact evidence of extremely unnatural anatomy.
Yet when proponents of the film state that they see muscle movements, then they are seeing what they want to see? Why cant it be applied to skeptics seeing what they want to see: Keys, Hip waders, diaper butt?
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=21716&view=findpost&p=510271DDA said:Rene Dahinden was in San Francisco and met Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin as they were exiting the Bluff Creek area because of heavy rains. John Green, Rene Dahinden and Jim McClarin all saw the movie at Al de Atley's home, the first showing. Roger and Bob went to Seattle and made copies of the film the following week at Forde Motion Pictures then went to BC to show the film to scientists at the University there. Bob Titmus saw the movie at the University of British Columbia and then went down to the site and made 10 casts. John Green and Jim McClarin were at the site in June of 1968 and made a comparison movie. Tracks were still visible.
Around 5:30 a.m. or so it started raining and it was just a pouring down rain. I told Roger we better get up and do something about the tracks or they'd wash out, and he said no, it would stop raining after a while. I went ahead and got up, put the saddle on my horse and decided I would ride up there while it was raining really hard and Roger says ah it'll quit, don't ride up there. I said no, I'm going to go ahead and ride on up there. I had gotten a couple of cardboard boxes from Mr. Hodgson's to cover these tracks the night before. So when I went outside to get a couple of these boxes that were folded up out there, they were just soggy old pieces of cardboard. I disregarded taking those back up there - so I rode back up to the scene, pulled some bark off some trees and covered up the tracks as best I could and went back to camp.
By then we decided it wasn't going to quit raining. The little creek that was six or seven feet across was now ten or twelve feet across and four feet deep! We were on the side of the creek which had to be crossed with the truck to get out to the main road. I said well I'm going to go ahead and cross the creek with the truck and get started out. And of course Roger thought it would stop raining and he suggested I leave him there and come back and pick him up.
These were all things that we did prior to leaving the scene. It was a good thing we did, because that night when we came back...
By then we decided it wasn't going to quit raining.
And of course Roger thought it would stop raining and he suggested I leave him there and come back and pick him up.
were on the side of the creek which had to be crossed with the truck to get out to the main road
Back at the campsite, weather conditions had gone from bad to worse. Fearing a possible landslide on the Bluff Creek road, Patterson and Gimlin decided to get out of the area. They packed up and left for Yakima at about 4:00 a.m., October 21, 1967. They experienced great difficulties getting out of the area. The Bluff Creek road had caved away so they had to take the Onion Mountain route.
Yet when proponents of the film state that they see muscle movements, then they are seeing what they want to see? Why cant it be applied to skeptics seeing what they want to see: Keys, Hip waders, diaper butt?
First thing you learn is that the skeptics do not have all the answers.
First thing you learn is that the skeptics do not have all the answers.
First thing you learn is that the skeptics do not have all the answers.
First things I learned is that believer have *ALL* the answer from everything to the life and the universe, and their answer funnily enough are neither "42", nor "I don't know".