Jump to content
Drew

A Revealing Gif Of Patty

Recommended Posts

xspider1

^ Very funny, SY.  That Revealing Gif of Patty is just about as dramatic as the Californians on SNL( :

 

    :B

 

To me, the BH 'lie detector test' seen above ^^  appears to be exactly what it is: completely fake.   The documented tracks also do not help with the apparently impossible task of showing any indication what-so-ever that the PGf could even possibly have been hoaxed:

 

post-131-0-07311800-1371870700_thumb.jpg

Edited by xspider1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The Jacobs thread ignored witnesses surronding the site and published measurements from scientists on location. Proof that it wasn't bear proportions over where shadows may or may not be and poor armchair guessing about what is what. That sighting could very well be just another hoax made to appear as a possible misidentification just for the controversy and another added twist to the mystery.

Back on the subject, I still don't believe the tracks are from Patty and will continue to discuss that in the (Patty's feet thread). I have some ideas I presented on how it was done but never stated them as fact. The witness claims on track depth issue was never resolved. There are several possibilities on how it was done but it's impossible to know without being there.

Over the years there seems to be canned responses to every aspect of the PGF. None of which have led to any scientific proof that it was real.

Recent information from Jeremy DeSilva weakens Meldrums theory and good evidence is still needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

The Jacobs thread ignored witnesses surronding the site and published measurements from scientists on location. Proof that it wasn't bear proportions over where shadows may or may not be and poor armchair guessing about what is what. That sighting could very well be just another hoax made to appear as a possible misidentification just for the controversy and another added twist to the mystery.

 

Quite the opposite and I will let the thread itself stand testament to whether you are stating the facts correctly. I also believe the term 'scientist' was used rather loosely as erroneously erasing part of the Jacobs subjects back on the unfounded claim that it was motion blur being removed was anything but scientific in my view. I also do not recall your position in that thread as the Jacob subject being a hoax, but like I previously said - the thread itself can stand testament as to whether you are citing the facts correctly.

 

Back on the subject, I still don't believe the tracks are from Patty and will continue to discuss that in the (Patty's feet thread). I have some ideas I presented on how it was done but never stated them as fact. The witness claims on track depth issue was never resolved. There are several possibilities on how it was done but it's impossible to know without being there.

 

'Anything' is said to be possible, but realistically probable is another matter altogether. As a self-proclaimed scientist, you certainly must have heard there is a difference even if you do not understand it.

 

Maybe a refresher on the term may be in order:  A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force

 

I also want it to remain clear that the track depth is unresolved with you and that you are not speaking for others like myself. I think why it is unresolved with you was reflected when you proposed that a trowel could be used to erase track evidence on an uneven and wavy sandbar without disturbing the ground debris. I am still waiting for your source that supports your proclamation that such a feat would be quite easy to do and not be detected. It's a fair question that you appear to be avoiding.

pattytrack2.jpg

 

 

 

Recent information from Jeremy DeSilva weakens Meldrums theory and good evidence is still needed.

 

Only when someone misstates what either man has said.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the Jacobs thread in this GIF thread but it was one investigation I made that I discovered something. Whether or not it was a shadow or a pile of horse hair on a kids back I did find a human back shaped silhouette under it, my video speaks for itself.

The trowel was just some idea on how it may have been done.

Witness testimony on the depth they could not create by jumping from several feet to horse tracks is why I don't believe the flotation style feet made the tracks. Science is about finding out new things not sticking to old stories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the Jacobs thread in this GIF thread but it was one investigation I made that I discovered something. Whether or not it was a shadow or a pile of horse hair on a kids back I did find a human back shaped silhouette under it, my video speaks for itself.

The trowel was just some idea on how it may have been done.

 

You did not mention the Jacob subject being a kid.

 

The trowel nonsense had nothing to do with thinking like a scientist, which you claimed to be. You went as far as to say that hiding tracks with a trowel to the point of not being detected would be quite easy to do. So you did more than just propose and idea and it appears you have no justification for saying that it would be easy to do.

 

Now about that source you have been asked about several times now .... do you have one or did you just make it up?

Science is about finding out new things not sticking to old stories.

Here is how a scientist works:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Not a kid? If there is no such thing as Sasquatch and it wasn't a bear then it had to be a youngster based on size alone. Why is everything we discuss on a forum gospel to you? New information comes out, we change our minds as we discover new possibilities. Don't get in a rut of not being able to accept change it's a changing world and if we find Sasquatch are not real so be it life goes on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

Not a kid? If there is no such thing as Sasquatch and it wasn't a bear then it had to be a youngster based on size alone. Why is everything we discuss on a forum gospel to you? New information comes out, we change our minds as we discover new possibilities. Don't get in a rut of not being able to accept change it's a changing world and if we find Sasquatch are not real so be it life goes on.

 

It does seem that some folks do change their mind - some flip-flop around multiple times like a fresh caught fish laying on a river bank and trying to get back into the water. And yes you did say the back of the Jacobs creature matched that of a human. However, your comment was about it matching the human man (bi-ped) bending over Vs a quadruped like a bear and you got this to happen by erasing the hump on the back that a bear has because their hinge point is at a different location than that of a human. Not that I am trying to turn this into the Jacobs thread - just trying to keep the record straight.

 

Oh yes .... about it having to be a youngster (kid) .... that isn't quite correct either. Here is what you said (in bold text) about the Jacobs creature and we'll see if you were talking about a kid or a Sasquatch .......

 

"Ahh yes, the old triangle shaped head with the identical silhouette of the Patterson creature above. Bear camp never ceases to amaze me."

 

I am positive that you were not saying that kids have a saggital crest like the Patterson creature.

 

"Hypothetically speaking Jake is the best juvenile Sasquatch we have to investigate. I'm just investigating evidence and Jake is surrounded by it."

 

Yup ... no reference to the Jacobs subject being a kid.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

 

From my heel my foot bends at 7 inches, just about exactly where Patty's would. Again it's all how you interpret the photo. If you feel confident about your assumptions that is good for you in itself.

Kerry,

 

The human body bein' generally proportionate, are you bout 5'7"  ?  As I've said, of particular interest to me is the bend relative to the shin, with your foot, what, roughly 4 inches ahead of your shin ?

 

Pat...

 

 

Kerry,

 

I asked this earlier, care to address it ?

 

Pat...

Depending on the construction if we assume the foot inside is smaller the outside foot could bend anywhere it gives. This is especially true if the foot inside is elevated or supported.

Kerry,

 

Even if a foot was smaller, it would still bend at the ball well in front of the shin.

 

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Yes I still think Jake could be a juvy and Patty a Squatch but I'm open to accept them as something else if I feel the evidence shows it. Could Jake be a youngster in a costume? I think so. Could Patty be a human? I think so.

Where the foot bends can be hidden inside. I wear overly large rubber boots at work in some sloppy cages. When they get stuck in animal poo they bend all sorts of ways but my foot inside remains anatomically human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Kerry,

 

K...does your barefoot bend roughly 4 inches in front of your shin ? 

 

An your boots may bend in all sorts of ways as you say, but does that bend in the boot occur right in front of your shin ? 

 

Pat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^ Very funny, SY.  That Revealing Gif of Patty is just about as dramatic as the Californians on SNL ( :

 

 

 

 

I'm glad you got a chuckle out of that, xspider... :)  'The Californians' is just as dramatic as watching to see if a Bigfoot skeptic is going to convert into a "believer"... :lol:

 

 

For the record, I was being sarcastic when I said "I sure hope he does convert". Seeing how there is no shortage of hard-core Bigfoot skeptics...(like Kerry, Tontar, and kitakaze)....I don't really care whether any one individual agrees with any of the pro-Bigfoot analysis.

There are simply way too many die-hard skeptics, and scoftics, for me to bother wasting my time trying to get some agreement from them.

 

My interests here are to contribute to the analysis.....try to determine what the truth of the matter is.....and, hopefully, make some good friends with proponents of Bigfoot... :)

 

 

 

 

To me, the BH 'lie detector test'  appears to be exactly what it is: completely fake.  

 

 

 

Yup...Bob Heironimus was being interrogated by Rolanda with 'softball' questioning......and an examiner who has fraudulent credentials... :lol:

 

And.....the gray soil at Bluff Creek was "as white as snow".....(on TV). 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
 Seeing how there is no shortage of hard-core Bigfoot skeptics...(like Kerry, Tontar, and kitakaze)....I don't really care whether any one individual agrees with any of the pro-Bigfoot analysis.

 

 

I agree. Debate is good when done by either side with on point detailed theories and opinions as it becomes a great tool for getting closer to the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

K...does your barefoot bend roughly 4 inches in An your boots does that bend in the boot occur right in front of your shin ?

Pat...

Yes around 4 inches, and my loose rubber boots can bend slightly in front of my shin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Some people have asked me if I work undercover for skeptical magazine CSI or Doubtful News and that's totally not true. I'm just debating both for and against to learn more and express my inner thoughts and concerns. I apologize if some of my ideas are too off the wall or hurt any feelings. I think I have learned all I can for now and still have hope that someday there will be proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serohs

No need Kerry. I am like you except I am a believer in the PGF. As to why well we have an expert who can show with reconstructions of what they had to work with at the time that according to his vast knowledge it is a living creature. Of course I am talking about Bill Munns. At the same time I want to know more about the footage, and I like the arguments from both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...