Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kitakaze

Pgf For Skeptics - Believers Welcome, Too.

Recommended Posts

Guest

I debunked the "those can't be real breasts" BS back on the old forum, linking to several examples of real women with very pendulus if not outright saggy breasts. (Earned a 30 day vacation toojust for posting a LINK, not an in-line image. No one ever explained to me how I was supposed to prove a point without pointing to the evidence...)

Saggy?

post-114-010087000 1287848303_thumb.jpg

I don't know, they look pretty "grabbable" to me! abit on the hairy side, but at my age, it's all good :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest vilnoori

Well the point is, if they're out there, they don't wear bras. Ever. There's quite a bit of conjecture that "Patty" was an older female. Ha. If so those puppies would be swinging down by her belly button and definitely a lot flatter than that. By human comparisons even if she was a young sasquatch, if she had nursed even one baby things would be a lot flatter. I suppose the only thing that is possible is engorgement. If that was so she'd be running, not walking so casually. :lol: I know from experience!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Well the point is, if they're out there, they don't wear bras. Ever. There's quite a bit of conjecture that "Patty" was an older female. Ha. If so those puppies would be swinging down by her belly button and definitely a lot flatter than that. By human comparisons even if she was a young sasquatch, if she had nursed even one baby things would be a lot flatter. I suppose the only thing that is possible is engorgement. If that was so she'd be running, not walking so casually. :lol: I know from experience!

You tell 'em Vil! :lol:

Unless she got got some store bought goodies, those sure don't look home grown to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Almost everyone on the forum is skeptical but that doesn't include Kit or many of his JREF gang. Words actually mean things. The definition of skeptical requires doubt. When you think you know everything,really not much of an exaggeration, you are not skeptical. How many believers do we have that believe just because? It is insulting and long past old and boring.

I debunked the "those can't be real breasts" BS back on the old forum, linking to several examples of real women with very pendulus if not outright saggy breasts. (Earned a 30 day vacation toojust for posting a LINK, not an in-line image. No one ever explained to me how I was supposed to prove a point without pointing to the evidence...)

Please read the thread title and OP. This thread is for people who think the PGF is fake and explicitly excludes people who believe the PGF shows a real Bigfoot. Believers have a thread which excludes skeptics here, so please give us the respect to have the same privileges as those given to PGF proponents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I am neither a believer or a non-believer, I simply do not know but I can make an arguement for either side. The thing for me is what makes me think hoax is not so much what I see in the film , (because generally I think Patty looks pretty darn convincing and don't think comparisons to the breasts of humans or apes is fair, or comparisons to the female human walk or anything else because if it does exist it is something very different and unknown to us), but it is the so-called back story. It is all very troubling. This includes the lack of defense by Patterson's widow and B.Gimlin to this day.

I hold out the possibility that Roger had some hidden talent and perhaps a little luck and created a very convincing film..let's face it; the film looks convincing enough to still be debated to this day, there are not too many things you can point to that fall into this category, but that back story has many holes and leaves me wondering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Please read the thread title and OP. This thread is for people who think the PGF is fake and explicitly excludes people who believe the PGF shows a real Bigfoot. Believers have a thread which excludes skeptics here, so please give us the respect to have the same privileges as those given to PGF proponents.

Bob and Mulder, there will be no recess for you this afternoon. There will be after school detention for 1 week and you'll get no chocolate milk during lunch. I recommend bringing Mr. Kitakaze apples in the morning until he's satisfied that you've learned your lesson.

Also, I'd like to nominate this as the "Thread of the Year" for 2010.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

I am neither a believer or a non-believer, I simply do not know but I can make an arguement for either side. The thing for me is what makes me think hoax is not so much what I see in the film , (because generally I think Patty looks pretty darn convincing and don't think comparisons to the breasts of humans or apes is fair, or comparisons to the female human walk or anything else because if it does exist it is something very different and unknown to us), but it is the so-called back story. It is all very troubling. This includes the lack of defense by Patterson's widow and B.Gimlin to this day.

I hold out the possibility that Roger had some hidden talent and perhaps a little luck and created a very convincing film..let's face it; the film looks convincing enough to still be debated to this day, there are not too many things you can point to that fall into this category, but that back story has many holes and leaves me wondering.

thick, I invite you suggest what sort of tissue makes up these "breasts," how much they might weigh, how they remain "horizontal" and why they show minimal movement. I am familiar with the bigfoot can be anything" argument, but as far as I know, no primates or even mammals have exoskeletons, and breast tissue is made up of mostly fatty and glandular tissue, with some connective tissue and skin, and possibly some milk. So how can these "breasts" be so rigid and without significant momentum/mass/bounce?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

parnassus, I have no idea as to the breast's weight or their make up and think it is irrelevant anyway. I don't believe there is enough clarity or resolution to determine to what degree they move or don't move. They are only visible for a few frames. There is a huge difference between the way human breasts look, never mind making comparisons to any of the great apes. I am just saying because we have knowledge about humans and apes does not mean it applies to something we know nothing about assuming it exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

parnassus, I have no idea as to the breast's weight or their make up and think it is irrelevant anyway. I don't believe there is enough clarity or resolution to determine to what degree they move or don't move. They are only visible for a few frames. There is a huge difference between the way human breasts look, never mind making comparisons to any of the great apes. I am just saying because we have knowledge about humans and apes does not mean it applies to something we know nothing about assuming it exists.

Thick:

Saying there is great variability doesn't really matter if that range doesn't include this "specimen." "Variability" doesn't allow an "appendage" to defy the laws of physics as well as the laws of nature.

wadr, everyone has an idea of the weight and movement of actual primate breasts... all would agree that they are not weightless and massless, and they are not cantilevered.

Krantz (pioneer bigfooter scientist) recognized the issue when he suggested these were not breasts but air sacs. Most bigfoot belevers try to ignore this idea nowadays, but actually it is more of a physical possibility, if not a biological one, because air sacs would be virtually weightless/massless, as these "appendages" appear to be.

Edited by parnassus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest vilnoori

Yes but that doesn't explain why Patty has apparently been wearing a bra on the sly. And took it off solely for this movie. Or maybe the bra is made from that invisible force field they apparently have got going for them.

Now airsacs, I hadn't thought of that. But they're not in the logical place for them. That's is just crazy. LOL

Edited by vilnoori

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

Yes but that doesn't explain why Patty has apparently been wearing a bra on the sly. And took it off solely for this movie. Or maybe the bra is made from that invisible force field they apparently have got going for them.

Now airsacs, I hadn't thought of that. But they're not in the logical place for them. That's is just crazy. LOL

water wings and swim fin feet!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest demon

That dark, unnatural, line that runs, horizontally, front to back, near the top of the subject's right thigh.

See my avatar.

same here.and the triangle diaper rear end that doesnt move one inch.this is the one thing that as soon as you see the footage,you ask why isnt its backside moving? it just hangs there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest midnightwalker1

That dark, unnatural, line that runs, horizontally, front to back, near the top of the subject's right thigh.

See my avatar.

Wrong! That's the most compelling piece of that shot for not being a hoax. It's a natural butt dimple and she even has a belly roll. Two odd features to throw into a suit's features. I have a night shot of two sas going by a uv lit area and the heavy subject #2 (I believe to be a female) has the exact same triangular butt dimple and belly roll. Now you're not privy to that video and I have a distinct advantage in how I look at that shot of Patti because I do. But it is the same feature that you say is the compelling costume irregularity...I say NOT. This is the real mccoy fellas. Argue all you want.

I think the big mystery is what happens at the end and not whether she's real. Someone I know has seen what happens and it made my jaw drop to hear it. I think there are some folks fearing that they may be fitted for some extra large cement river waders if they disclose these little pieces of info in the public eye. I don't blame them. Anyway, that's what I find to be the fascinating side of this story and not whether she's real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

That dark, unnatural, line that runs, horizontally, front to back, near the top of the subject's right thigh.

See my avatar.

Wrong! That's the most compelling piece of that shot for not being a hoax. It's a natural butt dimple and she even has a belly roll. Two odd features to throw into a suit's features. I have a night shot of two sas going by a uv lit area and the heavy subject #2 (I believe to be a female) has the exact same triangular butt dimple and belly roll. Now you're not privy to that video and I have a distinct advantage in how I look at that shot of Patti because I do. But it is the same feature that you say is the compelling costume irregularity...I say NOT. This is the real mccoy fellas. Argue all you want.

I think the big mystery is what happens at the end and not whether she's real. Someone I know has seen what happens and it made my jaw drop to hear it. I think there are some folks fearing that they may be fitted for some extra large cement river waders if they disclose these little pieces of info in the public eye. I don't blame them. Anyway, that's what I find to be the fascinating side of this story and not whether she's real.

You're now a skeptic, midnight? It's okay; it'll take a little while to change your thinking completely.

"Wrong! That's the most compelling piece of that shot for not being a hoax. It's a natural butt dimple..."

Take a closer look. That ain't a dimple, and it's clearly located near the top of the thigh; not on the butt. It's a horizontal line; not a dimple.

The subject's thigh is not flat, so neither is the line. It follows the contour of the thigh. We're looking at a line that runs not just front to back along the outer flank of the right thigh, but rather a line that follows the contour of the thigh and curves, both, around the front and the back of the thigh, as far as we can see. That's not a butt dimple.

"Two odd features to throw into a suit's features."

Not thrown into the suit; it was the natural result of a poorly fabricated suit.

"I have a night shot of two sas going by a uv lit area and the heavy subject #2 (I believe to be a female) has the exact same triangular butt dimple and belly roll."

Are you sure that it was subject #2 and not subject #1? Why not take another look just so we can be absolutely sure that it is actually #2, the heavier of the two subjects, and not subject #1, that is the female.

"Now you're not privy to that video and I have a distinct advantage in how I look at that shot of Patti because I do. But it is the same feature that you say is the compelling costume irregularity...I say NOT."

Oh, I can certainly see how you have a distinct advantage over me concerning the way you look at that shot of Paddy's cakes, because I'm not privy to that video. I have a short video, too. It was taken near a creek in northern California, from a little over 43 years ago. It shows a person either getting into or getting out of some kind of ape costume. I can't reveal how I came to posses this little gem, but, I'll show you mine, if you'll show me yours.

post-6024-1211062676.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

"Two odd features to throw into a suit's features."

Not thrown into the suit; it was the natural result of a poorly fabricated suit.

An excellent point, Romano. I have seen this mal-logic applied to other flaws the suit: step one: identify the costume defect as a feature of a real body (eg flab, hernia) then, step two: say that a suitmaker couldn't have duplicated flab or a hernia. I'm glad you pointed it out.

Edited by parnassus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...