Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
Diogenes said:
I went through the DVD myself.. I wasn't able to match up any more than the butt..

Contrary to the ' unfakeable detail ' that PGF'ers see, I see a patched together furry suit...

The butt just seems like too much of a coincidence to me....
Click to expand...

No doubt about it, the Gemora butt in that photo and pose is incredibly similar to the Patty butt in that frame and position.

The difference comes when viewing both in motion.
 
Checklist for making bigfoot video:

1. Man in costume
2. Bad focus
3. Only a few seconds of film

PG came up with the formula. P&T used the formula and fools many people as well. The only difference is that P&T came out with the truth.
 
How about a checklist for talking out your butt about the PGF? Asserting it was only a few seconds of film and badly focused come to mind.
 
Huntster said:
No doubt about it, the Gemora butt in that photo and pose is incredibly similar to the Patty butt in that frame and position.

The difference comes when viewing both in motion.
Click to expand...
I know what you mean... Looks like Gemora used better glue..

Can you give a morphological explanation as to why Patty's butt should look like that ?

The only reason I can come up with, is that she was specially bred for making bad looking costumes ...;)
 
Doesn't bother me in the slightest, but you would know that if you actually paid attention once in a while. Why do you make it so easy to make you look ignorant, Ken? Tell you what, I'll help you out but you have to pay attention this time- The PGF is most likely nothing more than a man in suit. There's the truth and it didn't hurt a bit, right?
 
The PGF is most likely nothing more than a man in suit. There's the truth and it didn't hurt a bit, right?
Click to expand...

That's like saying that the earth is most likely spherical.
 
Unfortunately, no. You see we have irrefutable proof that the earth is spherical yet we don't have irrefutable proof that the PGF is a hoax. Yet, under the circumstances it remains likely a hoax.
 
thaiboxerken said:
When you figure out the difference between mythical creatures and real ones, I'll take you more seriously as well.
Click to expand...

kitakaze said:
I don't recall having a problem with the distinction, care to elaborate?
Click to expand...
Feel free, anytime BTW. (In the mean-time, if it's alright, I don't think I'll allocate much worth to being taken seriously by you.)
 
Remmember the fairy photo ?

kitakaze said:
Ken, when you figure out the difference between highly unlikely, highly in doubt, and unproven as opposed to non-existent you'll be taken much more seriously. (Well, it'll be a start.)
Click to expand...

There is as much proof for the jackaloppe, the fairy, and loch ness snake than for sasquash. In all those case there is only photographic photo or film. No DNA. No bones. No Corpse. No Abeus corpus :).

IMO "ken" is quite in the right track to assume inexistance. Remmember the thread of green/orange sceptic ? This is one of such case. You are probably such a sceptic which says if it is unproven then this is only unproven it still could exists (sasquash,fairy, loch ness....). Whereas he is (as I am) on the camp "this is surrealist. Come with a real scientific proof like corpse, bone or DNA, and you will have a case. until then badly cropped film don't cut anything, especially with the history of people hoaxing for sas/loch/fairy."

In other word we belong to the sceptic saying if the purple invisible dragon in your garage can't be proved (well maybe except wit photo) then it is safe to say it does not existis until you bring proof.

Thus Sasquasah exisitence is as strong as fairy and loch ness monster existence proof are.
 
Last edited:
Hey Aepervius, I checked out some of your posts and I realized that most likely English is not your first language which, by no means, should invalidate your comments on the subject. I apologize for my jab in the previous post. To address your earlier comment, jackalopes, fairies, and Nessie simply don't have the same hill of insufficient evidence behind it as BF does. Whether the extent of this evidence is due to a social construct or a living animal remains to be proven yet one cannot deny that given the lack of sufficient evidence for a living animal a social construct would seem more likely.
 
Aepervius said:
...IMO "ken" is quite in the right track to assume inexistance....
Click to expand...

More like a rut, in my opinion.

...Come with a real scientific proof like corpse, bone or DNA, and you will have a case....
Click to expand...

Now that's a real gem: "Come with proof, and you will have a case."

You're just like Kenny. That's signature material.

In other word we belong to the sceptic saying if the purple invisible dragon in your garage can't be proved (well maybe except wit photo) then it is safe to say it does not existis until you bring proof.
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight;

The PG film isn't good enough as evidence to support thousands of sightings, hundreds of footprints, and indigenous legend, but a single photo is good enough evidence to support the allegation of purple, invisible dragons?

If the dragon is invisible, how do you know it's purple, and how do you get a photo?

You're even more entertaining than Kenny. You even surpass his lunacy.

Have you been drinking with Kenny and his buddy? (See sig line below............................)
 
Huntster said:
The PG film isn't good enough as evidence to support thousands of sightings, hundreds of footprints, and indigenous legend, but a single photo is good enough evidence to support the allegation of purple, invisible dragons?
Click to expand...


Well that is the point of my post. You seem to sorely oversee that in all case, there is no data which are scientifically usable. There is as much sighting and photo for UFO. Do you belive in UFO ? There is as much proof for sasquash than for loch ness monster (heck loch ness monster and other jkobold legend are older. Not even counting all the mythological animal you see in many description for the whole middle age).

The point is quite clear, I may not speak a very good englisch but here is it :
If for you PGF and some terribly inconsistent footprint and description are proof enough, then you should believe in a lot more than Sasquash. You should also believe in UFO for which we have as much proof and film. You should believe in fairy (lot of stills. And thousand of year of legend and sighting!). You should believe in loch ness monster. Do you ?

And this is my point. What you hold as standard for proof is not scientifically acceptable for proof of existence of animals.

if you keep ignoring that, then fine with me. I will leave you with your belief.
But pelase at least eb consistent and start believing in all other mythological animals and sighting with the same proof standard.

PS: kit, I always tries to improve my english so critic are accepted. But you are right
english is not my first language. It isn't either my second language (german) or the thrid I learnt (latin) It came only as fourth, and if I may, I msotly learnt on my own with game, s-f books and a dictionary....
 
Aepervius said:
PS: kit, I always tries to improve my english so critic are accepted. But you are right
english is not my first language. It isn't either my second language (german) or the thrid I learnt (latin) It came only as fourth, and if I may, I msotly learnt on my own with game, s-f books and a dictionary....
Click to expand...
I'll leave the rest of that post since it was addressed to Huntster but I'll just say, Aepervius, you keep rockin' with your English. Do you mind if I ask what your first language is? Juggling four languages (Latin!?) would certainly be a chore so bearing that in mind I hope any criticism I offer would be constructive. Being bilingual (English/Japanese) I can relate (I have a hard enough time keeping my English straight).
 
Aepervius said:
Well that is the point of my post. You seem to sorely oversee that in all case, there is no data which are scientifically usable. There is as much sighting and photo for UFO. Do you belive in UFO ? There is as much proof for sasquash than for loch ness monster (heck loch ness monster and other jkobold legend are older. Not even counting all the mythological animal you see in many description for the whole middle age).

The point is quite clear, I may not speak a very good englisch but here is it :
If for you PGF and some terribly inconsistent footprint and description are proof enough, then you should believe in a lot more than Sasquash. You should also believe in UFO for which we have as much proof and film. You should believe in fairy (lot of stills. And thousand of year of legend and sighting!). You should believe in loch ness monster. Do you ?

And this is my point. What you hold as standard for proof is not scientifically acceptable for proof of existence of animals.

if you keep ignoring that, then fine with me. I will leave you with your belief.
But pelase at least eb consistent and start believing in all other mythological animals and sighting with the same proof standard.

PS: kit, I always tries to improve my english so critic are accepted. But you are right
english is not my first language. It isn't either my second language (german) or the thrid I learnt (latin) It came only as fourth, and if I may, I msotly learnt on my own with game, s-f books and a dictionary....
Click to expand...

Your English is quite good enough to understand. I agree. If all you have is a pile of manure, the size of the pile is not relevant.
 
Aepervius, I have been looking for a term and you just gave it to me.

Scientifically usable.

Thanks.

No evidence has come up regarding sasquatch that science can use.

When some comes along, science will use it.
 
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