LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Hey, Blackii looks just like Patty from the P/G film.....
Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film
- Thread starter Skeptical Greg
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bigfoot film patterson gimlin
- Status
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
No wait....
Read Krantz.
Krantz said the jaws suggested bipedalism.....the jaws....
Read Krantz.
Krantz said the jaws suggested bipedalism.....the jaws....
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
This creature in this picture is clearly not in a mammalian family other than canides.
Image source:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National...l/2005/03/01/1109546871418.html?oneclick=true
This creature in this image is clearly not in a mammalian family other than felines.
Image source:
http://prehistoricsillustrated.com/pg_pixs_04.html
I introduce you to evolutionary convergence.
So, how can you back the claim that bigfeet are primates? What do you need?
But I do agree that PGF shows a primate. More specifically, genus Homo, species sapiens.
Starrman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,171
How can you say that with a straight face (who knows maybe you are chuckling)? What does a 'real bigfoot' look like if there is no specimen for comparison? We know there are men, and we know there are monkey suits - those can be verified with little effort.
Until a specimen of a 'real bigfoot' is found, calling it anything but a man in a suit is equivalent to calling it an alien, a shapeshifter or an gargoyle. Those three things have something in common with Bigfoot.
Looks like an animal to me.
From the Glickman analysis:
We are referring to the PG film, are we not? It is commonly accepted to be either a sasquatch, a man in a suit, or some (like Ursula) consider the possibility that it is an extraterrestrial being.
I believe it is a sasquatch.
Not according to this:
Correct, with the caveat that the film subject utilizes a "compliant gait", which is uncommon among people.
At 7'3.5", a 14.5" foot length is very reasonable.
Because, if they exist, I don't believe that an extraterrestrial being looks and behaves like a bipedal ape.
Do you?
Because that's what it looks like.
I agree, except the film subject shows characteristics of both human and ape.
The theory of evolutionary convergence appears to explain that to my satisfaction.
We have the film and thousands of eyewitness testimonies.
Correct.
And after nearly 40 years of effort, the subject in the PG film has not been determined to be a man in a suit.
That is incorrect.
The men who filmed the subject said they believed it was a sasquatch.
It looks like what thousands of eyewitnesses have said they saw.
Calling it an alien, shapeshifter, or gargoyle is an attempt to degrade the film symantically, or is an honest belief.
Do you believe it is an alien, shapeshifter, or gargoyle?
UrsulaV
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 956
In the absence of any specimen of a sasquatch for study, can you prove that a sasquatch is NOT an alien, shapeshifter, or interesting subspecies of gargoyle?
UrsulaV
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 956
Haven't a clue. You'll note, however, that I wasn't the one saying with such clarity that the film did NOT depict an alien.
I don't know what aliens may look like, and thus, I'm not going to claim that I know a creature that has not been captured and studied couldn't be an alien.
I'm just pointin' out that for somebody with no sasquatch in the hand, who doesn't know what an alien looks like, you were sure throwin' around some declarative statements there about what the PGF could and couldn't be...
Nope.
Fair enough. That's your right.
And it's my right to believe, based on the evidence, that the subject depicted in the PG film is an uncatalogued animal that is most likely a primate.
I feel comfortable believing that the subject is not an extraterrestrial being.
Please continue arguing that it might be. It makes my position much stronger.
UrsulaV
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 956
Oh, well, as long as you feel comfortable, that's the important thing!
I feel comfortable believing that the subject is not an undetected species of primate living in the Pacific Northwest, myself.
So have we established, then, that you have no more proof that it's an unknown primate than you do that it's an alien, shapeshifter, or gargoyle? That while you may BELIEVE the subject is an unknown primate of terrestrial origin, you have absolutely no more proof of that than anyone does that it's an alien, gargoyle, etc?
Just wanna be clear.
No, we have not.
There is evidence that a large ape has existed in the Pacific Rim, there is a film in which a subject was shown that looked like a bipedal ape, and there are thousands of eyewitness sightings in which the subject was described as a large, bipedal ape.
There is no evidence whatsoever indicating that the subject of the sightings was an extraterrestrial being, nor that extraterrestrial beings exist, nor that if they did, they would look like a bipedal ape.
There is no evidence indicating that shapeshifters exist.
There is no evidence that gargoyles, which are commonly depicted in Medieval architecture, look like apes.
I do not have proof, but there is plenty of evidence in the form of eyewitness testimony.
I don't believe you want to be clear. I believe you want to introduce wild conjecture and straw men in order to weaken the existing evidence.
You are failing.
UrsulaV
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 956
*grin* Ya know, if I was really failing, I rather suspect you wouldn't feel obligated to keep saying I was. And goodness, now I'm weakening the existing evidence? In the post before, I thought my arguments were making your position stronger!
Methinks the Huntster doth protest too much...
Anyway, just to be verra clear, *I* did not introduce the idea that they were aliens. And furthermore, if you read back over my posts, and actually read them, you may note that at no point do I EVER claim Bigfoot is--or even might be--an alien.
All I do is ask, repeatedly, what evidence you based your very clear statement that the PGF definitely did NOT portray an alien on. And then state that since I do not know what aliens look like, I would not claim with such certainty, myself, that the PGF did not contain them. Subtle difference, there, I grant you, but asking you for proof of YOUR claim does not in fact constitute an endorsement of the opposite claim. Any good researcher would not dispense with the need for proof of an unproven claim merely because they happened to agree with that claim. That would be dreadfully sloppy.
But please, continue to be all snide. It makes pointing out that you're wrong that much more gratifying.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Beckjord has as much evidence as the BFRO.....
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Hunster, there is no evidence that G.B. was huge.
We know his head was, of course.
We have no idea whatsoever how tall he was, or if he was bipedal.
We know his head was, of course.
We have no idea whatsoever how tall he was, or if he was bipedal.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Looks like a man to me, so that's a push.
None of the primate experts I referred to said anything about a "compliant gait", nor do I see one in the P/G film.
Glickman was way off on the height. Patty is nowhere near that tall and nowhere near that heavy.
How can you be unaware of how Glickman has been discredited? Why bother to even mention him? Most believers have long since abandoned his figures.
- Status