Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[bruto]

To me, a picture tells very very little. I will never be convinced that something exist based on pictures. Bring me hair, scat, or bones. I'll be converted instantly. Pictures tell nothing.

I would not consider a picture final scientific proof, perhaps, but a good, clear picture or series of pictures that cannot reasonably be consdered a picture of something else, from a trustworthy source would suffice for me to say "I think there's a bigfoot after all," and I think it would be sufficient to trigger a proper, all out scientific search.

 

[demonologist]

How could a picture every be clear enough to conclude that it can't be something else? I'd rather have any small bone in the body than a clear as day picture. A picture can always be hoaxed.

This is why I don't accept anecdotal evidence. The same reason applies to pictures. They can always be easily deceiving. Criss Angel did this trick on his show a while back. He took his levitation trick to the next level and actually floated from the top of one building to the next. Nothing between him and the sky but air. Now while most people there surely knew it was a trick, they were still astonished by what they saw. If Criss Angel can fake flying, surely someone can make a fake, clear picture of a real looking ape costume.

 

[LTC8K6]

A high-res picture of Patty with a zipper visible would even tell Huntster something. The better the pic the more we can see.

Pictures may not prove bigfoot is real, but they can certainly show that the particular one isn't.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I have to wonder if the people that see the PG film and think it's anything other than a person in a costume also think that the characters in "South Park" are not just cartoons.

 

[thaiboxerken]

If Criss Angel can fake flying, surely someone can make a fake, clear picture of a real looking ape costume.

Perhaps, but the costumein this PG film isn't evne real looking, one can see the seams.

 

[Huntster]

....If Criss Angel can fake flying, surely someone can make a fake, clear picture of a real looking ape costume.

I agree. But Roger Patterson wasn't Criss Angel, the PG film was shot 39 years ago, and the footprints were there too, confirmed by an independant witness who photographed them.

But, ultimately, I agree that a photo ain't gonna do it with "scientists" like those found on this forum. Only a carcass will do.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The photo didn't do it for any scientists outside of this forum either. For some reason, sasquatch hasn't made much of an impact in the scientific world.
Perhaps it has something to do with films of people in costumes not being accepted as evidence of sasquatch.

 

[Huntster]

The photo didn't do it for any scientists outside of this forum either. For some reason, sasquatch hasn't made much of an impact in the scientific world....

Well, Kenny, I have to admit you're consistent in your errors.

The photo didn't do it for allscientists outside of this forum. There are few scientists in appropriate fields of study who call the PG film a hoax. Most call it "inconclusive".

And even though the creatures haven't been "discovered" yet doesn't mean they haven't had much of an impact on the scientific world. This is for sure: discovery will turn the scientific world upside down for a little while.

Perhaps it has something to do with films of people in costumes not being accepted as evidence of sasquatch.

Maybe, but I have a very strong belief that there are other reasons.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The photo didn't do it for allscientists outside of this forum. There are few scientists in appropriate fields of study who call the PG film a hoax. Most call it "inconclusive".

"Inconclusive" in scientific circles is a politically correct way of saying "it's not evidence."

Only a moron would think animals have seams.

 

[Huntster]

"Inconclusive" in scientific circles is a politically correct way of saying "it's not evidence."

You continue to amaze me. You still haven't mastered the language enough to know what evidence is, and that if it is conclusive, it's proof.

I suppose a partisan, ideological fool like yourself wouldn't know the English language, but would know "politically correct" language.

Only a moron would think animals have seams.

I don't believe a single accredited scientist ever said that he "saw seams" in the PG subject.

Do you have a "seam" remaining after your lobotomy?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Psst.. Scientific inquiry into esp, pixies, alt-med and all other nonsense also comes up with "inconclusive" as a conclusion. In the world of science, it's another way of saying "this doesn't mean anything."

It's clear there are seams in the costume just looking at the video. Clear to anyone that's not a fool, that is.

 

[thaiboxerken]

[qimg]http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-1-1083873179.gif[/qimg]



Look at the seams, they are right there at the waistline and whre the thighs start. Also, why don't sasquatch have butt-cracks?

 

[Huntster]

[qimg]...Look at the seams, they are right there at the waistline and whre the thighs start. Also, why don't sasquatch have butt-cracks?

Her butt-crack is quite visible in a few frames.

I suggest to delve into a little research before running your fingers over the keyboard.

There is lots of detail available for free review here.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Her butt-crack is quite visible in a few frames.

No, it's not. But the seams are, as well as the bunched up material in the thigh area.

 

[demonologist]

I agree. But Roger Patterson wasn't Criss Angel, the PG film was shot 39 years ago, and the footprints were there too, confirmed by an independant witness who photographed them.

PG isn't clear upclose film either. I was talking about a hypothetical "good" video that's yet to surface and whether or not that would mean anything. To me it would mean nothing. It could easily be faked. Bones, on the other hand, can't.

But, ultimately, I agree that a photo ain't gonna do it with "scientists" like those found on this forum. Only a carcass will do.

No need to put scientists in scare quotes. I assure you they aren't very scary people.

But this shouldn't be discouraging to you, as a carcass should be a lot easier to find than good photos. Dead bodies don't run away.

 

[Huntster]

No, it's not. But the seams are, as well as the bunched up material in the thigh area.

Take a look at this moving footage before spouting off much more.

 

[Mad Hom]

I have done exactly that. It's just that my idea of moving on is different than yours.

Since it's inconclusive, I think it's reasonable to be prepared for the next such event (if actually not actively trying to perform an organized search), and respond appropriately.

The next event?!?! It's been 40 years,that's a long time to wait isn't Fudster?,and nooooo the arseprint,cripplefoot and/or whatever else you can think of does not count as an "event" at least in as far as they are also........Inconclusive

And your opinion that it's Bob in a suit doesn't make it so.

And it's one or the other. There are no other options.

You are correct sir it does not make it so...but my point is this...if we are in agreement that the PGF is "inconclusive" at absolute best than that leaves Bigfoot Fan with nothing,well except for the warm,oh so fuzzy,wuzzy Bleef that a 7-8 ft,700-1000lb Bipedal animal that smells like someone urinated on a dead skunk,yodels it's lungs out at all given hours of the night,mumbles in drunken samurai,leaves it's footprints everywhere walking on feet with an on again/off again mid-tarsal break uses it's reclusivness,it's penchant for nocturnal living and it's mutant level stealthiness to somehow stay just a few steps ahead of those that seek it out.

Bigfeet,them crafty devils.

Fudley,has the thought ever occured to you that maybe,just maybe the reason no one has found anything definitive in 40 years is not because of anything the Bigfeet are doing but more because their might just not be any Bigfeet out there to find. Hmm? Maybe??

 

[Mad Hom]

I agree. But Roger Patterson wasn't Criss Angel, the PG film was shot 39 years ago, and the footprints were there too, confirmed by an independant witness who photographed them.

Again with the independant witness snapped some photos mularkey?? Is that all it takes Fudd? Cripes!! Rack your brain Fudster....is it not possible that this independant witness was as fooled by P & G as rank-n-file Bigfoot Fan?

His photos do not alter the possibility that the footprints he snapped weren't hoaxed regardless of how much you'd like to think so.

But, ultimately, I agree that a photo ain't gonna do it with "scientists" like those found on this forum. Only a carcass will do.

That is right.......Kill one....kill one and show us Evuhhhhl skeptics what's been leaving all these footprints.Show us Evuhhhhhl skeptics the subject of these many hundreds of eyewitness accounts. Show us something other than arse casts,snapped branches,footprints and vague might be an animal but than again might be a guy in silly suit films.

Show us this and we will indeed dine on our crow robustly.

Don't show us this and continue to parade before us uselessly vague,ambiguous and inconclusive snippets of half asssed evidence and of course we will continue to scoff and laugh.........robustly!!

The clock reads triple zeros Fudley....time's up....show us the damn monkey already!!

 

[bruto]

Take a look at this moving footage before spouting off much more.

What's new in this? Those who see a bigfoot will still see one. Those who suspect that the unusually flapping fur of the butt and the changing profile of the thigh suggest a bloke in a suit will have no reason to suspect otherwise. the person posting acknowledges that it does not rule out a bloke in a suit. And of course there's the basic problem that the data he is using to corroborate the film come from the same people who made the film, a leniency that seems typical in the incestuous world of bigfoot research.

 

[Huntster]

The next event?!?! It's been 40 years,that's a long time to wait isn't Fudster?,and nooooo the arseprint,cripplefoot and/or whatever else you can think of does not count as an "event" at least in as far as they are also........Inconclusive..

Yes, they do count as events, and one of the reasons they are "inconclusive" is because of the lack of an appropriate response.

That's the point here, Horny.

You are correct sir it does not make it so...but my point is this...if we are in agreement that the PGF is "inconclusive" at absolute best than that leaves Bigfoot Fan with nothing...

No, it leaves us with "inconclusive evidence". The way to remedy that is to be prepared with the appropriate plans and resources to react and respond appropriately at the next, best opportunity.

Fudley,has the thought ever occured to you that maybe,just maybe the reason no one has found anything definitive in 40 years is not because of anything the Bigfeet are doing but more because their might just not be any Bigfeet out there to find. Hmm? Maybe??

Actually, no.