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

Remember, the suit does not have to replicate the footprints, we don't know if those were created by the suit, and but it seems unlikely.

I agree with this comment, but in good conscience had to revise it slightly.

post-31-003291000 1284226217_thumb.jpg

post-31-009310700 1284226276_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gershake

Is the pic on the left a close-up shot of the one on top? If so, it looks like the feet are attached the wrong way round to the (hypothetically assumed) suit??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

... if skeptics would say something like this ...

"The PGF is a very interesting piece of footage. It may show a living bipedal ape... or it may not...

I hope that quote is ok, Shadow. I like what you said.

At this point, I think the only thing that would convince me of it being a hoax is either: somebody finds the original suit in good condition and, they re-create the video convincingly with that suit or; somebody re-creates it convincingly with a different suit. Either way, if nobody can re-create That Creature (or, any other Bigfoot as realistic) to this day then, that's a darn good reason to believe that it could be genuine.

Edited by xspider1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

For what it's worth i totally agree with you xspider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Thanks, Petey. I agree with myself too (most of the time). :B I'm no level 4 billion, ninja, jedi master Bigfoot authority but, it seems to me that there have ALWAYS been good reasons to attempt a PGF recreation. In fact, it has been attempted, to some degree, many times (i.e., the various suits, hoaxes, Bigfoot movies, etc. etc.) - to little or no avail. So, when I hear: 'show me the monkey', I say: 'show me the recreation'. If Patty is a costume then, surely making another costume as realistic would be easier that catching a live Bigfoot! haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

If Morris didn't make the suit that Patterson modified then who did?

There has been no proof of a suit at all, so asking "who made it" is premature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Perhaps you should consider the flip side of that argument. First you need to prove there is such an animal despite no proof being presented in the history of man.

cough

Giganthropithicuscough

Until such an animal is proven to exist, with no evidence or back story at all, its still a man in a suit. (because we know men in suits exist, and we can prove they do)

"If it is not proven true it MUST be false" fallacy.

Strike One!

So after 40 some years, why no more film of said "animal"?

Been several...See the Films forum and LMS.

Strike Two!

Youve got to prove such an animal even exists to be filmed.

An animal can exist and be filmed prior to a formal finding of "proof".

Strike Theeee...you're OUT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Don't know cause I maintain Sasquatch has been extinct since the mid to late 1970's.

Sincerely curious...what is your evidence for that? Because we have eyewitnesses and films post-dating the 70s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Don't know cause I maintain Sasquatch has been extinct since the mid to late 1970's.

Sincerely curious...what is your evidence for that? Because we have eyewitnesses and films post-dating the 70s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest River

cough

Giganthropithicuscough

Cool! Go tell all the scientist we already have proof of bigfoot. It was found in asia many moons ago. Tell them mulder said so. They will be excited. Not......

Also, why would you think Giganto is bigfoot? Proof?

"If it is not proven true it MUST be false" fallacy.

Strike One!

We can prove there are men in suits. We cannot prove there is bigfoot. Why do you suppose no other "pattys" or "patty" herself was found again at bluff creek? The subject of the film appears to be quite slow, and walked out in the open in the middle of the day. Perhaps this is why the PGF was not very well accepted at the time of its release. I'm pretty sure scientists back then think about it the same way they do now (with only a few exceptions, who have yet to prove such an animal exists to begin with.) The animal has to exist to be filmed correct?

Been several...See the Films forum and LMS.

Strike Two!

Which specific films are you refering to mulder?

An animal can exist and be filmed prior to a formal finding of "proof".

Strike Theeee...you're OUT!

Can, but wasn't. The only thing "out" is bigfoot currently. Obviously.

I still has a baseball.

Thats how the proof thing works. It's not assumed, or given without validation. When did bigfoot become a validated claim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Cool! Go tell all the scientist we already have proof of bigfoot. It was found in asia many moons ago. Tell them mulder said so. They will be excited. Not......

Your assertion was that there was no historical record EVER ("in the history of man") of a large bipedal ape. Assessment of the characteristics of recovered Giganto fossils indicate that it was a large, bipedal ape.

Thus your claim is disproven.

Also, why would you think Giganto is bigfoot? Proof?

Giganto fits the characteristics of bigfoot: Large, bipedal ape originating in Asia, where it could have migrated to the Americas just as many other fauna did during the various times when the Bering land bridge was open. It's as good a candidate as any. Care to show me a better candidate?

We can prove there are men in suits. We cannot prove there is bigfoot.

That is a complete non sequitur. Statement A =/= Statement B.

Why do you suppose no other "pattys" or "patty" herself was found again at bluff creek?

There have been plenty of sightings, tracks, etc in and around the Bluff Creek

area.

The subject of the film appears to be quite slow, and walked out in the open in the middle of the day.

So what?

Perhaps this is why the PGF was not very well accepted at the time of its release.

By some, but well accepted by others, whom Meldrum cites in LMS.

I'm pretty sure scientists back then think about it the same way they do now (with only a few exceptions, who have yet to prove such an animal exists to begin with.)

So only after a slab monkey is obtained are scientists allowed to have the professional opinion that BF exists?

Can, but wasn't. The only thing "out" is bigfoot currently. Obviously.

Only in the made up minds of psuedo-skeptics. Given the massess of evidence that Bigfoot DOES exist, anyone with an open mind at least leaves that option on the table.

Thats how the proof thing works. It's not assumed, or given without validation. When did bigfoot become a validated claim?

The truth of something's existence is not dependent on what "science validates".

Did meteorites exist before science accepted them? Did gorillas? Did germs cause disease back when "science" still taught doctors to bleed out "bad humors"?

Edited by Mulder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

The subject of the film appears to be quite slow, and walked out in the open in the middle of the day.

I don't understand that bit. The subject in the PGF doesn't appear to be 'slow' to me and it was caught out in the open in the middle of the day, possibly after resting for a drink at the creek in the cover of the downfall tree pile while moving from point a to point b. There wasn't really anywhere else the subject could go except walk out in the open in the opposite direction away from P and G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

Hello,

[omitted a bunch of stuff]

Some parts of a backstory can be important, but not everything... But, that's just my opinion.

M, my dad would have called that "running a mile to jump a foot ditch." :D

ps: I love the conspiracy theory newspapers at Dealey Plaza; did you ever go to the Conspiracy Museum there? not the Depository, the Conspiracy Museum....it is so tacky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
parnassus

I was trying to be funny, hoping no one would think I was serious. Sorry. ..is it getting funny yet ;)

Edited to add, as my wife will attest, my sense of humor is not always funny, most people don't get it, and most people don't even know when I'm trying to be funny, regardless of how funny I think I am. So, my bad, not yours.

Ace, even when you're not funny, your efforts to be funny are funny. :D

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...