Jump to content

Problems That Need Addressing.....


Guest BF believer

Recommended Posts

I personally believe the this is another waste of time debate. The so called discrepancy in the beard is most likely an artifact of lighting. A lot of this is all double standard, we can blame the quality of the film, lighting etc as reasons why her mouth and eyebrows don't move, but its good enough to claim there is some sort of evidence in his beard. Really? A waste of time, roguefooter, you may have made in error using your first comparison, but that does not change that you are most likely correct. Just my opinion, but then, thats all we are discussing here, is opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

That may well be correct...the 'cast pour footage' may have been filmed on Tuesday, or Wednesday......and the 'cast display footage' may have been shot on Saturday night...(it was shot under artificial lighting.......ol' Rog was so 'pumped' over his encounter....he just couldn't wait for sun-up, to film his 'catch'!).....after Roger arrived back home in Yakima.

Yet Gimlin recounts nothing of artifical lighting film sequences, says the plaster pour was just after Patty, and Roger says the only filming was done on Patty Day...

http://www.bigfooten...iopatterson.htm

http://www.bigfooten...rviews/john.htm

Make it go away. Make it be of inconsequence. Let it pad the realities desired.

Edited by kitakaze
Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of padding, what kind of shoulder pads do you think this chimp is wearing? I think the hands are kind of interesting to.

post-3077-0-28506600-1332682612_thumb.jp

Edited by JohnC
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

I personally believe the this is another waste of time debate. The so called discrepancy in the beard is most likely an artifact of lighting. A lot of this is all double standard, we can blame the quality of the film, lighting etc as reasons why her mouth and eyebrows don't move, but its good enough to claim there is some sort of evidence in his beard. Really? A waste of time, roguefooter, you may have made in error using your first comparison, but that does not change that you are most likely correct. Just my opinion, but then, thats all we are discussing here, is opinion.

Come to the place of fairness. Welcome yourself into this place where you treat proponent claims with an equity you make proviso for skeptical ideas.

Answer this...

Have Patty's eyebrows and mouth been conclusively demonstrated to be moving uncharacteristically of a suit?

Speaking of padding, what kind of shoulder pads do you think this chimp is wearing? I think the hands are kind of interesting to.

None. Patty wears this kind...

Bigshoulders.jpg

Edited by kitakaze
Link to post
Share on other sites

Has Rogers beard been conclusively demonstrated to be something other than an artifact of lighting?

Has Patty's shoulders been conclusively demonstrated to be artificial padding?

Has the ridge showing in her thigh been conclusively demonstrated to be nothing less than a natural phenomena we see in varied degree's in many hair or fur covered animals?

Have we conclusively demonstrated we can trust the word of any of the parties involved?

Have we conclusively demonstrated that peoples memories of events is not the same each time the story is told?

Where am I not being fair?

In all fairness Kit, they are all just claims and opinions, I do not disagree because I am a "believer" I disagree because often the skeptic's claims are just as suspect as the believers claims.

Edited by JohnC
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

"Where am I not being fair?"

Nowhere, until one suggests reliable evidence for the existence of Bigfoot.

Is it unfair that the PGF will never be reliable evidence without a matching holotype?

disagree because often the skeptic's claims are just as suspect as the believers claims.

Start with one. I'll do what I can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now there is a good example of why I disagree with your opinion on the shoulder pads, the transition from the top of the shoulders to the neck, does not, in my opinion, support your theory. This, on the other hand, looks more accurate to me.

I do not view the PGF as the "holy grail" of Bigfootry. It is not the core of my opinions or beliefs, it is simply an anomalous film. But if someone is going to debunk the film, and take on the mission of attacking what they consider such a pivotal part of the Bigfoot theory,, then they need to be as solid as they expect the claims from the other side are. I have not seen anything, in my humble opinion, that is solid enough, to consider proof of a hoax.

post-3077-0-06960200-1332683669.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Come to the place of fairness. Welcome yourself into this place where you treat proponent claims with an equity you make proviso for skeptical ideas.

Answer this...

Have Patty's eyebrows and mouth been conclusively demonstrated to be moving uncharacteristically of a suit?

None. Patty wears this kind...

Bigshoulders.jpg

If there is not enough resolution to see detail like eyebrow movement , mouth movement or glass eye iris' I don't think the resolutuion is there to see details indicating football pads of some sort either. IMO of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Why? It's not some minute detail thing. Her sternum is jutting out crazy. That's what padding does, not primates.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

If there is not enough resolution to see detail like eyebrow movement , mouth movement or glass eye iris' I don't think the resolutuion is there to see details indicating football pads of some sort either.

You don't get it. The cynics have special hoax detection vision. They can see stitch seams, rivets around the breast, keys bulging out on the leg etc etc.......and all this after complaining that the image is blurry and shaky and not clear at all.

Go figure!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

"And everywhere that Bobby walked.....the ground was 'white as snow"...

Well....on tv it was 'as white as snow". ;)

Hilarious isn't it Sweaty?

Bob Heironimus and his strange comments about Bluff Creek are a direct result of what he thinks he is seeing when he watches the t.v (snow white ground, dry creek, off the road, camera shaking from a horse etc etc) and obviously do not come from any personal experience of the event and the film site.

The nonsensical argument that the sunlight blinded Bob H and he thought the ground was white doesn't wash.....because he also got the 'dry creek' and 'off the road a ways' wrong as well. In fact he got just about EVERYTHING about the film site wrong.

Besides, Bob H wouldn't have been in bright sunshine the whole time. The journey up to the film site would have involved the sunlight disappearing through the trees and the surrounding hills at various moments seeing as they 'left the camp site in the morning' before the sun was at it's zenith. And wouldn't Bob H have been wearing a cowboy hat just like Patterson and Gimlin, thus giving him decent shade?

Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

patterson-moves-frames-added.gif

My guess, this was filmed in Yakima. What can we see in these images, it doesn't look like there is plaster on Roger's left pant leg as seen in the pourin' plaster images. What is seen in these images looks like leaves on a branch infront of his foot. Looks like it's rather breezy based on the shadows shiftin' about, as well we see what looks like good ol' fassion trash on the ground blowin' around as well(white thin' to left of Rogers shifts about).

kitakaze,

What confermation do we have both that both first an second reels were sent for developement at same time ? I know John said he first saw the second reel at showin' for scientists, 26th if I recall. I would think if it was developed at same time, it would have been viewed when they viewed the first reel.

Pat...

Why? It's not some minute detail thing. Her sternum is jutting out crazy. That's what padding does, not primates.

kitakaze,

You've suggested this before, an I suggested lookin' at the prior or followin' frames, her sternum is actually even with the rest of her torso.

An again, account for your suggested shoulder pads not obscurin' all the perfectly natural contours visible such as the median furrow, the depression between her shoulder blades, the perimeter of her shoulders an trapezious. Shoulder pads...me thinks not.

Pat...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...