Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
xspider1

Is There A Better Way To Explain What We See In The Patterson-Gimlin Film?

Recommended Posts

Guest Vincent

I'm glad you clarified that Kerchak. I didn't see you say anything like: 'wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhh' either and I personally feel that anybody saying that somebody else said something that they did not say is very, very wrong.

Vincent, you just proved my point really. Wearing a wig

does not have anything what-so-ever to do with telling the truth in regard to a Bigfoot encounter. Why do you

suppose that it generally seems like the PGF non-believers

are grasping at straws?

Well... I can't change your mind. You Already know it's fake;) IMHO. But you want to believe.IMHO

Wearing a wig and pretending to be a proper na Indian(no not some 1/16)... But an actual tribe custom following Indian means that gimlin is not above pretending he's something he's not in order to get money.

Just another character flaw on these 2 Carnys with highly questionable motives.

At this point there's so much evidence proving the film

Fake (IMHO mods) that's it's more or less case closed. Wanna re-open it? It's on you and yours to prove it's real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
X-spider you forgot the end where the proponent starts calling the skeptic names, and making subtle threats I.e "you wouldn't last 2 minutes in these woods with me, boy!"
?!!

Who did that? When?

Link, please.

Why so edgy hunster?

Huh?

I don't believe anybody wrote that, and I don't like it when people lie. So why don't you just back that allegation up with a link for all of us to review.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vincent

And changing "pretending to be a north American aboriginal Indian guide to the world and media in order to profit" is a far cry from " just wearing a wig". Now THAT is what I call grasping at straws.

But you knew that.

IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vincent

I don't believe anybody wrote that, and I don't like it when people lie. So why don't you just back that allegation up with a link for all of us to review.

Nobody wrote that specifically...hence me putting "I.e" in front of it, although in hindsight "e.g" wouldve been better

But I have seen very similar from

Posters.... Why so riled up?

Huh?

Best wishes

V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vincent

Ps when I'm on my pc I'll be happy to dig up all the" threat like" posts if you like. I'd probably get in trouble by a mod for it though. My iPhone version of BFF doesn't have a post searching ability as far as I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest River

I'm glad you clarified that Kerchak. I didn't see you say anything like: 'wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhh' either and I personally feel that anybody saying that somebody else said something that they did not say is very, very wrong.

Vincent, you just proved my point really. Wearing a wig does not have anything what-so-ever to do with telling the truth in regard to a Bigfoot encounter. Why do you suppose that it generally seems like the PGF non-believers are grasping at straws?

Twas obviously meant as a joke, and to return the tone I was receiving. Pretty obviously. (imho) I hope the mods will excuse the thread derail and delte or hide the off topic crap here :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

At this point there's so much evidence proving the film

Fake (IMHO mods)

The documentary on the National Geographic Channel only this year clearly didn't come to that conclusion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mKNj5UPyXg

Edited by Kerchak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

^

Further to my above post, the out and out scoftics of the PGF are just going to have to deal with the fact that the PGF isn't going to go away and isn't going to be proven a hoax and is most likely still going to be debated long after we are all gone (unless a 'bigfoot' is discovered that looks nothing like Patty LOL).

The Bob H fiasco 'broke' over a decade ago and Long's book itself is half a dozen years old. It's hardly made a dent in the PGF mythos. That isn't going to change just because a few peeps from the JREF forum are still heavily pushing it and convincing a few others along the way.

Edited by Kerchak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vincent

^

Further to my above post, the out and out scoftics of the PGF are just going to have to deal with the fact that the PGF isn't going to go away and isn't going to be proven a hoax and is most likely still going to be debated long after we are all gone (unless a 'bigfoot' is discovered that looks nothing like Patty LOL).

The Bob H fiasco 'broke' over a decade ago and Long's book itself is half a dozen years old. It's hardly made a dent in the PGF mythos. That isn't going to change just because a few peeps from the JREF forum are still heavily pushing it and convincing a few others along the way.

Thar NG show, whilst fun to watch, is nothing better than watching "ghost hunters".

You and yours will never, IMHO believe it's fake, you want to believe. Hey, I take no big issue with it.

The amityville horror was proven a hoax, but there's still plenty of folks who believe it's true. And even a "scoftik" or wotever like myself would NOT want to spend the night alone in the amityville house. Even though I know the stories are fake. So I'm guilty just like you of. We are human. We believe in stupid stuff that doesn't exist.

The evidence, even OUTSIDE the bob h claims point to blatant fraud (IMHO).

I smashed my television years ago, I'm one if those folks that likes to think for himself, so I don't catch the latest pgf news.

Okay I'm gonna go dress like a Viking now, because on

My dads English side there might be Viking blood.

Feel free to scof on that for a bit;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

Thar NG show, whilst fun to watch, is nothing better than watching "ghost hunters".

You didn't answer my point. The point is that there ISN'T "so much evidence proving it's a fraud" and nobody has come up with it. Repeating your claim over and over again doesn't change the fact that you are incorrect.

You would think a serious investigation into the PGF on a serious channel (NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC) would provide this "evidence of proof". Yet they didn't and nobody else has either.................so where is it? You keep saying it's there. Where?

You and yours will never, IMHO believe it's fake, you want to believe.

Then why don't I 'believe' in the Freeman footage or the Memorial Day footage etc? If I just wanted to 'believe' then why stop at the PGF?

The evidence, even OUTSIDE the bob h claims point to blatant fraud (IMHO).

No it doesn't no matter how much you 'believe' that to be the case.

I'm one if those folks that likes to think for himself,

Me too. Which is why I always question the bold and almost always false claims from the scoftics/skeptics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I'm VERY close to closing this thread and will be handing out punitive actions against several members based on their posts.

My main problems lie with the following....

Kerchak, on 23 November 2010 - 01:16 AM, said:

Mommy River won't go out with me! wahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhh wahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhhwahhhhh wahhhhhhhh wahhhhhhhhhhh

Twas obviously meant as a joke, and to return the tone I was receiving. Pretty obviously. (imho) I hope the mods will excuse the thread derail and delte or hide the off topic crap here :)

The humor in it is certainly lost on me. Mis-quoting someone is dishonest and will be/is considered *baiting* by me.

You've been around the forums long enough to know this. Plus, I advised you yesterday through an answering PM to report any post you had a problem with as opposed to responding to it.

Quoting someone out of context is NOT cool. If you can provide a link to an actual post made by kerchak that includes the quote you attribute to him I will remove the hit to your warning level.

There was no 'name calling'.

Hypocrite is not name calling. Hypocrite is a perfectly valid and reasonable word to describe a person's behaviour.

I think you called River a know nothing hypocrite. That is certainly name calling and in violation of the following forum rules...

1. BFF has one rule above all else - Behave like adults!

What do we mean by this? Imagine the forum is run by a bunch of people who have invited you over for dinner - we expect sensible, well thought out conversation. If you start getting personal with other diners, you are likely to be ejected. This not your house after all, you don't have a right to sit at someone else's table and disrupt things.

2. Do not make things personal. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

3. Remember at all times that this forum is here to discuss the subject of Bigfoot, not to discuss other members. If you don't have something nice to say about someone, you might want to consider not saying anything.

4. Respect other members and their right to their opinion.

5. No name calling. Terms like ‘liars’ and ‘idiots’ are beyond the pale and will not be tolerated here. Additionally, calling someone's opinion ‘silly’, ‘ridiculous’, or any other derogatory term is not acceptable, as this is essentially calling that person's way of thinking into question. Opinions concerning content are welcome, opinions about members or their way of thinking are not. If you feel the urge to begin a post or a part of a post with phrases such as “How can anyone think…†or “I can’t believe anyone would feel…â€, then take a step back with a deep breath and read these Guidelines and Rules again before posting.

Is calling somebody a hypocrite worse than messing with another posters quotes and pretending they wrote something they didn't?

Not IMHO, and at this point mine is the one that matters. I see them as equally messed up in all sincerity.

So, you'll be issued a hit to your warning level as well.

Both of you guys could have avoided this if you'd simply *reported* the posts you took umbrage with.

Quoting someone out of context and portraying it as factual will evoke a punitive hit from me each time it happens. But, following up with an overly personal and name calling post that runs afoul of at least 5 rules will as well.

I don't like doing it, but I'm not in control of members send buttons. I simply respond to what is posted on the forum. I'd suggest for everyone to not post if they are *miffed* and to review their post prior to logging it to make sure it is in compliance with the Forum Guidelines.

Haven't checked either of your *strike* levels yet. But, if this represents the third one for either of you a suspension is mandatory.

X-spider you forgot the end where the proponent starts calling the skeptic names, and making subtle threats I.e "you wouldn't last 2 minutes in these woods with me, boy!"

Just sayin.

While somewhat ambiguous in that it doesn't single out a particular member, it still falsely attributes a finite and defined statement to a collective group.

I say falsely because of the following post...

Nobody wrote that specifically...hence me putting "I.e" in front of it, although in hindsight "e.g" wouldve been better

But I have seen very similar from

Posters.... Why so riled up?

Huh?

Best wishes

V

I can't speak for Huntster, but it riles me up because it insinuates a statement you admit/cede, when challenged by Huntster, that nobody wrote. That, in and of itself, makes it dishonest and baiting. It seems worthy of an increase in warning level in an effort to curb future posts of this nature.

As with River, I'd be more than happy to negate the increase if you can provide proof of your assertion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vincent

Sure... But I'm not on a pc at the moment so can't really search for posts. I did see certain prolific outdoorsmen make veiled threats towards skeptics.

I'll try to dig em up but it's hard because I'm reading/posting from my cell phone, hence don't have search features nor can I report posts.

All I did was mention some posters had been almost physically challenging "skeptics". If you find that reason to warn, fine.

If I were a mod I would review the suspected posters last few dats of posts and see if I was lying or not, especially since I have no ability to defend myself from the warn due to lack of a pc computer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vincent

I never said the statement was word for word, but I HAVE seen recent ones like it, from certain foul mouthed posters;(

Just trying to help out!

Best wishes

V

AND it was a response to a fictitious situation in the first place, as in the fake "skeptic vs proponent" dialogue.

Now that I think about it, if you warned me, it was completely unjustified. I hope you'll re-read and reconsider. But your the boss.

Edited by Vincent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Gigantofootecus: You commented previously about how the subject of the films foot doesnt

in that its not being slapped down flat on the ground so you cannot compare the two. A horses foot does not hit or leave the ground flat either. It too leaves pressure ridges and comes in contact with a very small surface compared to say a human or theoretically sasquatch. Why do you think a huge flat flexible foot of a sasquatch (that is around 6 feet tall) would leave a deeper impression than a horses sharp edged size one horse shoe from a 1400 lb horse?

I never said it would. But the dynamics of a foot versus a hoof are quite different. Besides, what part of the prints were measured as the depth? The deepest part? The average depth? What the hell are we talking about here anyway? Rather subjective, isn't it? Especially since Patty's tracks were highly varied in depth. So which track then?

You've seen the Laverty cast of the foot in motion, haven't you? Probably the deepest parts were the heel and ball. How much surface area is a heel compared to a hoof? About the same? At one point in the stride, the heel takes all the forward momentum and downward force from long compliant steps. A slow walking horse, however, puts 3 hooves on the ground at a time. I doubt that Gimlin's horse "dug in" very much at that pace. Already this puts 450lbs into 1 print for a horse and 500lbs on the heel print of a bigfoot. This is about the deepest part of each track, isn't it? The bigfoot also has much more downward walking force than a slow stepping horse.

I'm not saying this was how it happened, but there have been no experiments to demonstrate that it was impossible either. The only way to disprove the "deeper impressions than a horse" contention is to get 2 huge men and a horse on a creek bed and conduct some experiments. Have 1 man piggy-back the other in Shaq sized shoes and reproduce the Patty walk. Then measure the depth of the heel prints. THEN let's talk. :)

That said, unless we get access to the 2nd reel footage of Gimlin's stomp test showing the horse prints beside the trackway, this whole exercise is moot.

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

In at least a few frames of the PGF, the Creature’s leg can be seen coming down with a great deal of force (the muscles ripple considerably when the foot hits the ground). That adds another variable besides just weight to the equation. Also, I keep in mind that ground surface hardness (especially near water) can vary a lot in a very short distance.

One thing that makes the PGF so interesting is that, in the opinion of many, the anecdotal evidence does not seem sufficient to disprove it. And, since there is obviously a considerable amount of video evidence which has not been 'explained away' though the old standby 'man in a suit' theory, we have a real conundrum.

Edited by xspider1

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...