MikeZimmer Posted February 22 Posted February 22 Independence Day Bigfoot (Finally We Have an Answer) ThinkerThunker 121K subscribers
bipedalist Posted February 22 BFF Patron Posted February 22 Me thinks more data would be useful in the graphing, otherwise interesting comparisons. 1
BC witness Posted February 22 Posted February 22 Several of our own members have been expounding on body proportion comparisons on this forum for years, so this isn't new. 1
MikeZimmer Posted February 23 Author Posted February 23 1 hour ago, BC witness said: Several of our own members have been expounding on body proportion comparisons on this forum for years, so this isn't new. Yep, seems to me I might have done such in a few decades back, but ThinkerThunker does a good job of it in my opinion. I wonder if ThinkerThinker is a long time member of the forum, incognito? 1
Doodler Posted February 23 Posted February 23 The thing I like about this measurement tactic is it's a piece of cake to refute, but hasn't been. I would love to see someone produce a suit that has the right proportions to fake it, but hasn't happened yet as far as we know. It's reproducible, falsifiable, though until bodies on slabs, will we ever really know?
norseman Posted February 25 Admin Posted February 25 If it’s a hoax? The baby that is obviously not a doll is a nice touch. Very believable.
night912 Posted April 9 Posted April 9 On 2/23/2025 at 3:42 PM, Doodler said: The thing I like about this measurement tactic is it's a piece of cake to refute, but hasn't been. I would love to see someone produce a suit that has the right proportions to fake it, but hasn't happened yet as far as we know. It's reproducible, falsifiable, though until bodies on slabs, will we ever really know? You don't need to produce a suit with the same proportions. You just have to explained why the comparison is inaccurate. In this case, it is. The skeleton figure isn't properly lined up with the figure. The pelvic bone isn't accurately lined up with the figure.
NorCalWitness Posted Thursday at 04:07 PM Posted Thursday at 04:07 PM On 4/9/2025 at 8:59 AM, night912 said: You don't need to produce a suit with the same proportions. You just have to explained why the comparison is inaccurate. In this case, it is. The skeleton figure isn't properly lined up with the figure. The pelvic bone isn't accurately lined up with the figure. you are a total moron. go away.
socialBigfoot Posted Sunday at 01:29 AM Posted Sunday at 01:29 AM I like what ThinkThunker does with AV analysis. I recently reviewed the Minnesota Iceman case for a substack post and noticed John Napier -- back in early 1970s -- referenced the "intermembral index" which he defined as the "relative proportions of the upper limb and lower limb" as a percentage. ThinkThunker has his own spin on this with his pDNA, but certainly the general approach has been around for a long time, at least in Napier's area -- he was a primate biologist.
Littlewing Posted Sunday at 04:32 PM Posted Sunday at 04:32 PM On 4/9/2025 at 4:59 PM, night912 said: You don't need to produce a suit with the same proportions. You just have to explained why the comparison is inaccurate. In this case, it is. The skeleton figure isn't properly lined up with the figure. The pelvic bone isn't accurately lined up with the figure. Absolutely. I find it incredible people look at his skeletal overlay and think it’s accurate. The pelvis is WAY too low. We can see Patty’s butt crack. That’s a huge visual clue as to where the pelvis should be located. it’s a bit strange his entire PDNA theory is based on 1 single frame of Patty. Surely you’d repeat it over multiple frames to reinforce your idea. Or even create an animation so you can make sure the limb/joint placements work with natural looking movement.
CryptidTalk Posted yesterday at 02:19 PM Posted yesterday at 02:19 PM Interesting analysis. Like others, however, I question the overall alignment of the skeleton. Has his work been studied by any primatologists to verify its accuracy?
NorCalWitness Posted yesterday at 04:50 PM Posted yesterday at 04:50 PM On 4/13/2025 at 9:32 AM, Littlewing said: Absolutely. I find it incredible people look at his skeletal overlay and think it’s accurate. The pelvis is WAY too low. We can see Patty’s butt crack. That’s a huge visual clue as to where the pelvis should be located. it’s a bit strange his entire PDNA theory is based on 1 single frame of Patty. Surely you’d repeat it over multiple frames to reinforce your idea. Or even create an animation so you can make sure the limb/joint placements work with natural looking movement. I appreciate what he tries to do. His science is bunk, but it's entertaining for me. It stokes the flames of curiosity for many.
Doug Posted 18 hours ago Posted 18 hours ago In my opinion, he did not prove the existence of bigfoot in this video, however, I have faith that he will continue to be Thinker Thunker.
Recommended Posts