Jump to content
kitakaze

Where Are The Reports Matching The Pgf?

Recommended Posts

PBeaton

My opinion, in general most reports actually do describe somethin' quite similar to Patty. Take into account most descriptions are of males who tend to be larger an lack the breasts. We have tall, hairy, bipedal, massive, barrel chested, etc., etc., we read an hear it all the time. Of course there are variations, as would be expected in any livin' animals bein' observed. Older individuals likely larger, younger likely likely shorter an slimmer to some degree, etc. etc. Wasn't it John Green who said before he saw the PGF he had heard them described to him so many times, he pretty much new what he was goin' ta see, an wasn't surprised by what the filmed subject looked like. Not his exact words, but somethin' along that line.

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

Ethnocentrism rears its ugly head regularly...

Is that supposed to be a link?

My opinion, in general most reports actually do describe somethin' quite similar to Patty. Take into account most descriptions are of males who tend to be larger an lack the breasts. We have tall, hairy, bipedal, massive, barrel chested, etc., etc., we read an hear it all the time. Of course there are variations, as would be expected in any livin' animals bein' observed. Older individuals likely larger, younger likely likely shorter an slimmer to some degree, etc. etc. Wasn't it John Green who said before he saw the PGF he had heard them described to him so many times, he pretty much new what he was goin' ta see, an wasn't surprised by what the filmed subject looked like. Not his exact words, but somethin' along that line.

Pat...

Well heck, if'n John Green said it, then that there's confirmation e'nuff fer me! After all, he's a straight shooter, ain't never made a miostake, ain't never said a thin' what weren't true. Ain't never got his figures wrong or nothin', lessen you consider his identifyin' stomper prints as the real deal, or gettin' his drawin' of Patty all out of whack, dimensionally speakin' such that he started a whole lotta people believin' in what he'd said about them long ape-like arms, and short ape-like legs, even though any body with a fair set of spectacles can see by lookin' at the film that his measurin' was so far off that he ought not ever consider going inta carpentry or dress makin' or nuthin' else requirin' anything better than a thumb's guess at lengths and dimensions. Didn't he also have doubts about Roger's movie being a real bigfoot when he first saw it, before changin' his mind a little later?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Well heck, if'n John Green said it, then that there's confirmation e'nuff fer me! After all, he's a straight shooter, ain't never made a miostake, ain't never said a thin' what weren't true. Ain't never got his figures wrong or nothin', lessen you consider his identifyin' stomper prints as the real deal, or gettin' his drawin' of Patty all out of whack, dimensionally speakin' such that he started a whole lotta people believin' in what he'd said about them long ape-like arms, and short ape-like legs, even though any body with a fair set of spectacles can see by lookin' at the film that his measurin' was so far off that he ought not ever consider going inta carpentry or dress makin' or nuthin' else requirin' anything better than a thumb's guess at lengths and dimensions. Didn't he also have doubts about Roger's movie being a real bigfoot when he first saw it, before changin' his mind a little later?

Aren't you usually the first person to cry foul when a proponent on the board makes a personal jab/insult at someone else? What's the difference here?

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

Aren't you usually the first person to cry foul when a proponent on the board makes a personal jab/insult at someone else? What's the difference here?

Whatever are you talking about? I suspect a quick query posed to the moderators as to the history of "reports" might shed a little different light on your suggestion. And what personal jab or insult are you suggesting I have made?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

Whatever are you talking about? I suspect a quick query posed to the moderators as to the history of "reports" might shed a little different light on your suggestion. And what personal jab or insult are you suggesting I have made?

No I take that back about the complaining- I'm getting some of you guys mixed. I apologize for that one.

Making fun of Pat's dialect and talking down to him like he's on a dumb hick level is an insult. Why resort to that? Because he got you all worked up? You're not the only one who's done it though.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

No I take that back about the complaining- I'm getting some of you guys mixed. I apologize for that one.

Making fun of Pat's dialect and talking down to him like he's on a dumb hick level is an insult. Why resort to that? Because he got you all worked up? You're not the only one who's done it though.

There's a difference between a dialect, a person's personal style of speaking based on where they come from, their individual cultural center, their mouth or facial construction, and so on, and a contrived written style. If Pat has a drawl when he speaks, that's one thing. If I have an accent which betrays my ethnicity, hat's the same thing. When someone purposely writes in a manner that is intended to portray a particular image, it's writing style, not dialect. It's contrived. For example, forgive the racial connotation, but I think it's relevant here. If I write the word "asked", I would write it as "asked" However, if you heard me pronounce it, you may think that I said "axed". What you hear is my dialect, while I know how the word is written, I write it as asked. Now, were I to try to create a particular picture of myself in your mind, I might just go ahead and write my words phonetically instead of using proper spelling. I might then write, "hey, I axed you a queston..." Clearly, I am doing that on purpose, not because I don't know how to spell, or know how to write the words I'm writing.

Pat's writing is not a dialect, it's his contrived way of presenting himself. I think it is cute, but clearly contrived and purposeful. For you to accuse me of making fun of someone's racial ethnicity, or their cultural origin, or dialect is of base. There are plenty of people here that cannot spell properly, cannot use proper grammar, plenty of fodder for anyone looking to make fun of someone's ability to communicate. Note that rarely happens. The good old boy language that Pat uses is his personal writing style, he does it on purpose. It takes effort to drop "g" and add a comma. He likes doing that. I suspect a lot of people like it as well. I like it in fact. That said, if he can express himself in a false and contrived manner, then so can anyone else I would argue. He knows how "anything" is spelled, so do you, so do I. If he wants to do a bit of word play, fine. But don't confuse that with a dialect because it ain't. It's playing a game, simple as that. Pat's a smart guy, no question about it. If he writes like a hick and acts like a hick, there's a purpose behind it. If you doubt what I say, just ax him about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

No I take that back about the complaining- I'm getting some of you guys mixed. I apologize for that one.

Making fun of Pat's dialect and talking down to him like he's on a dumb hick level is an insult. Why resort to that? Because he got you all worked up? You're not the only one who's done it though.

roguefooter,

I just wanted to say thanks. It's funny how the simple fact that I don't always use the G bothers some ? Some have asked, an I have answered, I simply don't often pronounce the G, an I write like speak(there's another, I'll usually say an instead of and) When I see people on the street in the mornin', I'll say..."mornin'"...an I get enough "mornin'"s back, surely I'm not the only one. I expect pokin' fun at me is easier than addressin' what I said for some, no worries, I've thick skin, besides it's goes more to thier character than mine.

But again, thanks just the same roguefooter.

Pat...

Is that supposed to be a link?

Well heck, if'n John Green said it, then that there's confirmation e'nuff fer me! After all, he's a straight shooter, ain't never made a miostake, ain't never said a thin' what weren't true. Ain't never got his figures wrong or nothin', lessen you consider his identifyin' stomper prints as the real deal, or gettin' his drawin' of Patty all out of whack, dimensionally speakin' such that he started a whole lotta people believin' in what he'd said about them long ape-like arms, and short ape-like legs, even though any body with a fair set of spectacles can see by lookin' at the film that his measurin' was so far off that he ought not ever consider going inta carpentry or dress makin' or nuthin' else requirin' anything better than a thumb's guess at lengths and dimensions. Didn't he also have doubts about Roger's movie being a real bigfoot when he first saw it, before changin' his mind a little later?

Tontar,

I mention roughly what John had said for the simple reason, I agree. Most reports describe similar characteristics to what is seen in the PGF in my opinion. Similar description by witnesses predate any of John's books or his descriptions of sasquatchs. Are you familiar with reports from the late 1800's ? The early 1900's ?

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

roguefooter,

I just wanted to say thanks. It's funny how the simple fact that I don't always use the G bothers some ? Some have asked, an I have answered, I simply don't often pronounce the G, an I write like speak(there's another, I'll usually say an instead of and) When I see people on the street in the mornin', I'll say..."mornin'"...an I get enough "mornin'"s back, surely I'm not the only one. I expect pokin' fun at me is easier than addressin' what I said for some, no worries, I've thick skin, besides it's goes more to thier character than mine.

But again, thanks just the same roguefooter.

Pat...

I think I said it before, I don't have a problem with your contrived way of writin', I think it's sweet and endearing. I would not poke fun at it to insult. I simply know that it's not a dialect, it's an intentional method of portraying a particular image. There's a difference. An accent, or a dialect, is automatic, and natural. An intentional misspelling of words is not. :-)

Tontar,

I mention roughly what John had said for the simple reason, I agree. Most reports describe similar characteristics to what is seen in the PGF in my opinion. Similar description by witnesses predate any of John's books or his descriptions of sasquatchs. Are you familiar with reports from the late 1800's ? The early 1900's ?

Pat...

John Green's assessment of Patty, his diagram, and his measurements which follow that diagram, is wholly inaccurate and portrays an image of Patty that is simply not true. You can agree with an inaccurate depiction if you want, but I don't like buying into inaccuracies that are plainly visible to anyone willing to look.

I frankly do not take ANY reports into account, from the 1800's or the 1900's or whenever else, when it comes to the visual description of Patty. John Green described "Patty", measured "Patty" (supposedly), and reported that "Patty" had certain dimensions. If he took other reports into consideration when he did that analysis of Patty, then that's his own fault for tainting his research. Whatever the case, his depiction of Patty was inaccurate by quite a bit. It has been demonstrated time and time again, and like I said, if you choose to go along with his exaggerations, that's your choice. But don't try to convince me that doing so is not tainted and inaccurate. Don't try to convince me to exaggerate Patty's dimensions to accommodate some other people's reports from some other events form some other time. This whole freeform, artistic license thing always cracks me up. People morph whatever they see or hear into what they want to see of hear, to fit whatever preconceived notion they have. For example, Patty's hands swing past her hips just like ours swing past our hips, just below the butt line, well above the knee line. But because bigfoots are supposed to be ape creatures, ape boogie men, and not hairy forest people, even when looking at the hand as it crosses the line of the thigh, 2/3 up the length of the thigh, it will be described as reaching nearly to the knee. That sort of massaging reality is what makes the whole bigfoot subject so frustrating. People just don't like to deal with facts, they prefer to deal with opinions and personal preferences, and any attempt to nail something down into realist terms ends up in a dispute of some knuckleheaded origin.

John Green screwed up, for whatever reason. His numbers are wrong, clearly. Hanging onto his ratios and numbers and artistic depiction is hanging onto a fantasy image, not the image depicted in the film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

I think I said it before, I don't have a problem with your contrived way of writin', I think it's sweet and endearing. I would not poke fun at it to insult. I simply know that it's not a dialect, it's an intentional method of portraying a particular image. There's a difference. An accent, or a dialect, is automatic, and natural. An intentional misspelling of words is not. :-)

John Green's assessment of Patty, his diagram, and his measurements which follow that diagram, is wholly inaccurate and portrays an image of Patty that is simply not true. You can agree with an inaccurate depiction if you want, but I don't like buying into inaccuracies that are plainly visible to anyone willing to look.

I frankly do not take ANY reports into account, from the 1800's or the 1900's or whenever else, when it comes to the visual description of Patty. John Green described "Patty", measured "Patty" (supposedly), and reported that "Patty" had certain dimensions. If he took other reports into consideration when he did that analysis of Patty, then that's his own fault for tainting his research. Whatever the case, his depiction of Patty was inaccurate by quite a bit. It has been demonstrated time and time again, and like I said, if you choose to go along with his exaggerations, that's your choice. But don't try to convince me that doing so is not tainted and inaccurate. Don't try to convince me to exaggerate Patty's dimensions to accommodate some other people's reports from some other events form some other time. This whole freeform, artistic license thing always cracks me up. People morph whatever they see or hear into what they want to see of hear, to fit whatever preconceived notion they have. For example, Patty's hands swing past her hips just like ours swing past our hips, just below the butt line, well above the knee line. But because bigfoots are supposed to be ape creatures, ape boogie men, and not hairy forest people, even when looking at the hand as it crosses the line of the thigh, 2/3 up the length of the thigh, it will be described as reaching nearly to the knee. That sort of massaging reality is what makes the whole bigfoot subject so frustrating. People just don't like to deal with facts, they prefer to deal with opinions and personal preferences, and any attempt to nail something down into realist terms ends up in a dispute of some knuckleheaded origin.

John Green screwed up, for whatever reason. His numbers are wrong, clearly. Hanging onto his ratios and numbers and artistic depiction is hanging onto a fantasy image, not the image depicted in the film.

Tontar,

The question was where are similar reports describin' somethin' similar more or less. Your not carin' for John's drawin' is fine with me, I think it is off as well in areas. His drawin' came AFTER, my point was simple, when he saw the filmed subject, it was already familiar in appearance to him, as it is what he had already heard described to him by witnesses. My opinion, what witnesses describe is similar to what was filmed.

That you don't take any reports into account, when it comes to the visual description of Patty is strange, not really sure what to make of it really. After all, the question here, is lookin' for similar descriptions of Patty. I'm not tryin' ta convince you of Patty's dimensions Tontar, with some other reports from other times. However those descriptions suggestin' large dimensioned subjects seen an reported by witnesses over the years, I myself find quite interestin', an relivant to the question asked. You've already said you think everyone over the years has been exaggeratin' the width of shoulders, barrel chests, long massive arms etc. etc. That you don't agree with those who describe what they have seen, for what ever reason, would be massagin' reality to fit what you think they might/should look like. Myself, I think the descriptions are similar for a reason, they are describin' a animal that looks like that, in my opinion, what is visible in the film. As still described by Bob, who was there. As for you sayin' people not dealin' with the facts, an preferin' to deal with opinions an personal preferences, you do realize the simple fact here is that people describe a similar massive bipedal hair covered primate/animal/thing, they have for well over a hundred years. It is you, in my opinion, not dealin' with the simple fact that that is the general description givin' by witnesses, you choose to prefer your own opinions an personal preferences over those witnesses, those who have actually seen them.

Pat...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

That you don't take any reports into account, when it comes to the visual description of Patty is strange, not really sure what to make of it really.

Of course you don't know what to make of it, it conflicts with your homogenization of the entire subject. You don't care if you blend multiple reports into a single, "blended" description, even if that blended description conflicts with the subject in the PGf.

If you would pay attention to what you read, you would find out exactly what I meant. When analyzing the subject in the PGf, ONLY that subject should be analyzed. None of the other descriptions set out there by however many people over the years should be brought into that analysis. Ask Bill about it, he doesn't even like to use Patterson's or Gimlin's accounts of what they saw or did, because those can be skewed. What is on film is on film, period. Doesn't matter if some yahoo in Georgia says he saw a sasquatch with green tentacles coming out of its neck, because in your world where combining all other reports, you'd start to see green tentacles coming out of Patty's neck, or at least Sweaty might be able to produce a gif that doesn't show it, while saying it does. Analyzing each piece of evidence for it s own merits is the point, not tainting each individual piece of evidence with other possibly conflicting pieces of evidence. What about that is so hard for you to understand? If Patty shows a given arm length, of a given proportion, and you use all these other unrelated reports that give an entirely different arm length and arm proportion, you will, and you already have, taint your observations of the PGf subject, and you will, and already have, claimed that Patty has those long arms that OTHER reports have mentioned, but which Patty does not all on her own demonstrate.

In short, your method of dumping all reports into one trash can and combining them does nothing in terms of objective analysis.

His drawin' came AFTER, my point was simple, when he saw the filmed subject, it was already familiar in appearance to him, as it is what he had already heard described to him by witnesses.

Yes, John Green's drawing came "after" watching and supposedly analyzing the PGf. His drawing is completely inaccurate. He saw the film, drew an inaccurate rendering, and created an entirely bogus theory where Patty had super long arms, super short legs, wrote up fictitious IM numbers, and those false premises have tainted the bigfoot world ever since. If, as you say, he used his prior reports as a guide, instead of using the film as his guide, "when describing Patty's proportions", what the heck sort of analyst or scientist, or reporter is he? Not a very good one when it comes to Patty, sorry to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Of course you don't know what to make of it, it conflicts with your homogenization of the entire subject. You don't care if you blend multiple reports into a single, "blended" description, even if that blended description conflicts with the subject in the PGf.

If you would pay attention to what you read, you would find out exactly what I meant. When analyzing the subject in the PGf, ONLY that subject should be analyzed. None of the other descriptions set out there by however many people over the years should be brought into that analysis. Ask Bill about it, he doesn't even like to use Patterson's or Gimlin's accounts of what they saw or did, because those can be skewed. What is on film is on film, period. Doesn't matter if some yahoo in Georgia says he saw a sasquatch with green tentacles coming out of its neck, because in your world where combining all other reports, you'd start to see green tentacles coming out of Patty's neck, or at least Sweaty might be able to produce a gif that doesn't show it, while saying it does. Analyzing each piece of evidence for it s own merits is the point, not tainting each individual piece of evidence with other possibly conflicting pieces of evidence. What about that is so hard for you to understand? If Patty shows a given arm length, of a given proportion, and you use all these other unrelated reports that give an entirely different arm length and arm proportion, you will, and you already have, taint your observations of the PGf subject, and you will, and already have, claimed that Patty has those long arms that OTHER reports have mentioned, but which Patty does not all on her own demonstrate.

In short, your method of dumping all reports into one trash can and combining them does nothing in terms of objective analysis.

Yes, John Green's drawing came "after" watching and supposedly analyzing the PGf. His drawing is completely inaccurate. He saw the film, drew an inaccurate rendering, and created an entirely bogus theory where Patty had super long arms, super short legs, wrote up fictitious IM numbers, and those false premises have tainted the bigfoot world ever since. If, as you say, he used his prior reports as a guide, instead of using the film as his guide, "when describing Patty's proportions", what the heck sort of analyst or scientist, or reporter is he? Not a very good one when it comes to Patty, sorry to say.

Tontar,

Do you realize the question bein' asked in this thread ? It asks for similar descriptions in reports to what is seen in the PGF. As I said, the descriptions givin' by witnesses over the years do indeed describe somethin' quite close to the subject filmed, in my opinion.

I think I pay pretty good attention to what I read, if you payed attention to what you read Tontar, I think you'll find we are tryin' to look for similar description to the filmed subject, not just what the subject filmed looks like. I'm not the one havin' a hard time understandin' that, since you ask.

You have suggested a number of times ways to make the P/G subject look big if hoaxed, shoulder pads, thigh paddin' etc., would it be reasonable to say you think the subject filmed is big enough to require extra paddin' to accomplish such an appearance ? Bein' big is the norm for witnesses descriptions, big everythin', in hieght, in wieght, arm size, shoulder width etc., etc. Then simply givin' the rest of the usuals, bipedal, hair cover, pointed head, barrel chested, big feet, etc. etc. I don't know bout you, but I would then naturally say other reports do describe somethin' similar. That is the question of this thread Tontar, where are the matching reports.

You bring up arm length Tontar, how long the P/G subjects arms are, I can't say for sure. Do they look longer, Bob thought so when givin' his first interview(I believe it was the first interview?), the subjects bent posture can easily give the appearance the arms are longer, an as described by witnesses, the usually described bent posture could easily account for the witness describin' longer arms as well. Be the exact same optical illusion, or, perhaps...sasquatchs do have longer arms, I can't say, neither can you.

In order to build a profile of the subject Tontar, one studies the reports an looks for repitions, often described characteristics, etc. You said, "your method of dumping all reports into one trash can and combining them does nothing in terms of objective analysis." I think it's what I do, I seek to evaluate based upon relevant facts, regardless of feelin's. You on the other hand Tontar, when you dismiss hundereds upon hundreds of witnesses descriptions over a hundred years simply because you think they are all exaggeratin' when it comes to describin' a truely massive hair covered biped, that they have said to have seen, simply because you don't think they're that massive. That's not objective analysis if you ask me.

Oh..my opinion, any of John Green's work is far more interestin' an informative...just my humble opinion.

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

Tontar,

Do you realize the question bein' asked in this thread ? It asks for similar descriptions in reports to what is seen in the PGF. As I said, the descriptions givin' by witnesses over the years do indeed describe somethin' quite close to the subject filmed, in my opinion.

I think I pay pretty good attention to what I read, if you payed attention to what you read Tontar, I think you'll find we are tryin' to look for similar description to the filmed subject, not just what the subject filmed looks like. I'm not the one havin' a hard time understandin' that, since you ask.

You have suggested a number of times ways to make the P/G subject look big if hoaxed, shoulder pads, thigh paddin' etc., would it be reasonable to say you think the subject filmed is big enough to require extra paddin' to accomplish such an appearance ? Bein' big is the norm for witnesses descriptions, big everythin', in hieght, in wieght, arm size, shoulder width etc., etc. Then simply givin' the rest of the usuals, bipedal, hair cover, pointed head, barrel chested, big feet, etc. etc. I don't know bout you, but I would then naturally say other reports do describe somethin' similar. That is the question of this thread Tontar, where are the matching reports.

You bring up arm length Tontar, how long the P/G subjects arms are, I can't say for sure. Do they look longer, Bob thought so when givin' his first interview(I believe it was the first interview?), the subjects bent posture can easily give the appearance the arms are longer, an as described by witnesses, the usually described bent posture could easily account for the witness describin' longer arms as well. Be the exact same optical illusion, or, perhaps...sasquatchs do have longer arms, I can't say, neither can you.

In order to build a profile of the subject Tontar, one studies the reports an looks for repitions, often described characteristics, etc. You said, "your method of dumping all reports into one trash can and combining them does nothing in terms of objective analysis." I think it's what I do, I seek to evaluate based upon relevant facts, regardless of feelin's. You on the other hand Tontar, when you dismiss hundereds upon hundreds of witnesses descriptions over a hundred years simply because you think they are all exaggeratin' when it comes to describin' a truely massive hair covered biped, that they have said to have seen, simply because you don't think they're that massive. That's not objective analysis if you ask me.

Oh..my opinion, any of John Green's work is far more interestin' an informative...just my humble opinion.

Pat...

Sure Pat, I can read. And I think I sort of get the gist of the thread. Where are the reports matching the PGf? I figure that means that the subject in the PGf is somewhat relevant to the topic, what that subject looks like, what it moves like, what general appearance as well as specific appearance it has. Am I close?

So, you have the PGf as the starting point, right? The question was not does the PGf match other reports, rather do other reports match the PGf. So, what does one see in the PGf? What are the traits, characteristics, dimensions, proportions and so on of the subject in the PGf? Break it down, what does Patty look like? Come up with a good description of Patty, and then see if other reports tend to mirror her or conflict with her. Contrary to what you seem to suggest, you don't determine Patty's appearance by first studying reports of other sightings of unrelated subjects by unrelated people, with no photographic evidence to back them up. The topic puts Patty first, as the only bigfoot filmed acting as the starting point, the blueprint if you want to call her that. Then see if other reports match what we can see in the filmed subject. Now, if I am wrong about any of that, let me know. So far you haven't told me how I am misunderstanding the point of this thread, you just keep trying to say I'm confused. I may be confused about a lot of things, but tell me how I am confused about this particular topic. Is it about Patty, and whether or not other reports match what we see of her?

When you say that I dismiss hundreds upon hundreds of witnesses, it sounds pretty impressive. How many hundreds of films of Patty are there? Again, analyzing Patty is a one stop shopping experience, there's only a few moments of action on screen, you can freeze frame anywhere, take measurements, analyze arm length, leg length, posture, gait, all of those individual characteristics unique to Patty. What hundreds upon hundreds of reports are any more clear, any more objectively visible? John Doe says he sees a ten footer, with shaggy hair covering the entire head, flowing down over the shoulders and face. Do we see that in Patty? Nope, so what do we do with that report? Blend it with Patty's image and start saying Patty just might have long flowing hair on her head, hanging past her shoulders, covering her face? Of course not. John Doe's report is irrelevant when analyzing patty's appearance. It's not necessary and as it is (supposedly) of a different creature, it does nothing to define Patty's appearance.

The question was not about "profiling" the bigfoot species as a generalized group, it was whether or not what other people say they see is at all similar to what was filmed in the PGf. It was not whether other bigfoots were 8-10 feet tall, or looked like rockstars or wore hats, it was whether any of those described bigfoots seemed similar enough to what Patty reveals on film. Verbal reports can only provide subjective slices of what was seen. You know what krakens are? Sea serpents? Giant octopus, giant squid, the works. I submit that here are hundreds upon hundreds of witness reports about those as well, and when you see the largest octopus ever documented in a photograph, or the largest squids, or whales or dugong, or whatever, they typically look rather different from the "witness reports", don't they? Photos, and better yet film or video, do a much better job of capturing objective details than most eyewitness reports. Currently, the ONLY objective analysis possible is with the PGf. It's the only and the best photographic evidence something exists. I appreciate that you want to argue that (subjective) verbal reports are somehow objective analysis, but I have to disagree. Or that those verbal reports are somehow more objective than a filmed subject. I disagree with you on that point as well.

You're very correct in saying that we can't determine whether the arms of bigfoots reported by eyewitness reports are long or short, but when it comes to the PGf, it's possible to measure the subject in the film for relative lengths. The general area for the joints, like the knees, the ankles, the wrists and elbows, and the area where the upper arms swings from the shoulder, can be reasonably well pinpointed, and so measurements can be taken to get reasonably close ratios of limb to limb lengths. Overall size, not so much, but proportions can be reasonably well determined. Verbal reports might say they saw long, ape-like arms, but Patty tells a different story.

Take a look at some of the videos companion to this link. See if you think the creature in these videos fit your preferred witness reports of bulk, girth, hair covered, big hands, big feet, and so on. Does this creature fit the reports? I think you will probably have no option but to say yes. But does it match Patty? I have no doubt you will say no. Therein lies the problem posed by the topic question; broad, generalized descriptions can describe bigfoot, but they can describe bigfoots that in reality have little in common other than being hair covered caricatures.

What a lot of people might describe as eyewitness reports might end up describing a creature more like the one seen below, or more like Harry Henderson, but neither of those "match" Patty. Where's the butt? Where's the similar head shape, or hair type or length, and so on. Generalizing is always fun, opens the door to any and all players. But when trying to determine if bigfoot is real or not, and what they really look like, specificity is a lot more important.

<http://youtu.be/F_Y3pRBh1ao>'>http://youtu.be/F_Y3pRBh1ao>

http://youtu.be/F_Y3pRBh1ao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Wookie73

I have a question that kinda pertains to this thread. IF Ketchum's DNA data points towards Homo sapien bigfooti won't that kinda put the PGF to rest as the critter on the film is obviously ape based? There doesn't seem to be anyway to rationalize that Patty is any sort of human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tontar

I have a question that kinda pertains to this thread. IF Ketchum's DNA data points towards Homo sapien bigfooti won't that kinda put the PGF to rest as the critter on the film is obviously ape based? There doesn't seem to be anyway to rationalize that Patty is any sort of human.

Ah, are you saying that say, Ketchum's study actually happens, actually is based on some bigfoot DNA, and they conclude that bigfoot is a form of human and not a form of ape, then we have a sort of threshold set for what bigfoots should look like; as in they should look like humans more than they should look like apes?

And then pertaining to Patty, are you saying that Patty looks more like an ape than a human, and so if bigfoot is determined to be a human form, Patty looking to be an ape form, then Patty would then be a hoax because she does not look like she should, like a human?

Interesting idea. I saw something today suggesting the Ketchum report should be released by the end of the month. Believe that? :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest parnassus

One of the most striking ways in which the accounts don't match Patty is in the "tightrope", "in-line" or no-straddle gait seen in "trackways", which is discussed in another thread here.

Perhaps this concept came about from the alderfoot imprints at Bluff Creek, but it seems to still be a pretty popular idea.

Patty did not have this gait. hmmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...