Jump to content

Why Patterson And Gimlim Were Successful That Day.


Recommended Posts

Guest Bigfoothunter

Warning: Some skeptics may wish to consult their gut before engaging the animation posted below. To go with the Munns video .... stretching of the hide and muscle movement!

 

Bill Munns can correct me, but the technology to make a suit to do these things didn't exist for another 20 years did it not???

 

greenarrow.gif

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Irrelevant to you DWA,but maybe very relevant to other people when looking at this phenomenon. And since you are not the judge of all things relevant...

 

irrelevant - having no bearing on or connection with the subject at issue; "an irrelevant comment"; "irrelevant allegations"

 

So dmaker - are you certain that you have your definitions correct?  If someone was to say that they believe dmaker is a hoaxer because they can cite case after case where others who went by the name dmaker have been exposed as being hoaxers ... would you not agree that what other dmakers do or don't do has no relevance on you. I'm certain you would take that position ... no doubt what-so-ever ... might even call it one of those gut feeling things. The same would apply to all those who have my name "Bill". In fact, I do not think I have ever met anyone in my 55 years who hasn't taken such a position when referring to themselves. I personally think DWA was correct on the above grounds. You talk science, but yet you are attempting to use rumor and innuendo to lump possible good evidence to known bad evidence in the way Archie Bunker would do people. And worse - you do it while admitting you have no opinion on what may be the best evidence because you choose not to engage it. DWA nailed it IMO when he said, "In science, the evidence is the judge. Sorry, but "belief in" doesn't really belong here. It's a dodge that basically says:  I'm not really knowledgeable about this, and have no intention of getting there."

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Pretty easy no Bigfoot or significant part of a bigoot has been proffered that looks anything like what's in the film....whirl completed and tummy feels good :)

Mission accomplished!!

 

Aren't you someone who when a claim is posted where someone has taken a photo or a film of a Bigfoot that the first thing you want them to do is to show it to you? Its not a body part is it? By your past statements, unless I have missed something, a photograph or a footprint has no evidentiary value.

 

Evidence:

1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es
1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
2. To support by testimony; attest.

Got Monkey?

 

 

That would take killing one ... could you do it if you had the chance?  BTW, do you have a 1960's suit that could do what is seen in post #181??

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cervelo

Here's how I look at "evidence" you can pick this apart and examine the threads till the cows come home but its not going to change what it obviously is....

A2A78A28-5382-4226-8C9C-295C2F0B7304-236

And countinue to post all of these to your hearts content but it doesn't change what they are either...

45FBF30D-9A9B-4809-930B-D8FC36B085D8-732

Just so you know Bigfoothunter I'm the guy that is going to pay Bills expenses to go see the suit if he gets the chance.... maybe that helps you understand my postion as if that's really what your interested in?

Edited by Cervelo
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Just so you know Bigfoothunter I'm the guy that is going to pay Bills expenses to go see the suit if he gets the chance.... maybe that helps you understand my postion as if that's really what your interested in?

 Biscardi was going to pay to have Crabtree come with him to verify that the dead Bigfoot in the Georgia freezer was real and we all know that Biscardi is as shady as a willow tree.

 

As for your response about evidence ... well it speaks for itself as I am only interested in hearing intelligent opinions based on the evidence. Thanks for reminding me again of what DWA who can't engage in a direct answer - "In science, the evidence is the judge. Sorry, but "belief in" doesn't really belong here. It's a dodge that basically says:  I'm not really knowledgeable about this, and have no intention of getting there."

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Show me a Bigfoot body to compare it to..or just an arm.

Trying to convince people what in your opinion it can't be doesn't make it what you think it is ;)

 

 

I can compare it to a human body....and to a human body with an extended lower-arm. The difference between Patty's arm and those is significant...and, if it cannot be replicated with a human-in-a-suit....then it simply must be a real creature.

 

This is what analysis of the Film is all about...comparing Patty to a human, and trying to replicate what we see.  

 

What makes the analysis even better, Cervelo....is that you cannot refute what the comparisons show...and, neither can you replicate what they show. :)

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cervelo

Well your entitled to your opnion but until a Bigfoot body shows up ya got nothing but your opinion.... I dont have to refute or replicate anything....like I said showing what it isn't doesn't prove what you think it is :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

Here's how I look at "evidence" you can pick this apart and examine the threads till the cows come home but its not going to change what it obviously is....

 *photo removed*

And countinue to post all of these to your hearts content but it doesn't change what they are either...

 

*photo removed*

Just so you know Bigfoothunter I'm the guy that is going to pay Bills expenses to go see the suit if he gets the chance.... maybe that helps you understand my postion as if that's really what your interested in?

 

Ok...........so at this stage of the game who is being unscientific?

 

It's Ok that skeptics of the PGF do not find Bill Munns work convincing. But when are the skeptics going to get together and analyze the evidence as in depth as Bill Munns..........or debate him for that matter in a open forum?

 

Bud, I don't like your cotton ball analogy. It's much more like two teams building fence line..........and the Munns team is stretching wire.............and the other team hasn't gotten their first post sunk yet. ;)

Edited by BigGinger
To Remove Re-posted Images
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Well your entitled to your opnion but until a Bigfoot body shows up ya got nothing but your opinion.... I dont have to refute or replicate anything....like I said showing what it isn't doesn't prove what you think it is :)

 

 

Nothing but my 'opinion'.....and...'comparisons, analysis, and science'.....OH MY!... :lol: 

 

You are the one with nuthin' but 'O-pinions'. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cervelo

 

Here's how I look at "evidence" you can pick this apart and examine the threads till the cows come home but its not going to change what it obviously is....

 

*photo removed*

And countinue to post all of these to your hearts content but it doesn't change what they are either...

 

*photo removed*

Just so you know Bigfoothunter I'm the guy that is going to pay Bills expenses to go see the suit if he gets the chance.... maybe that helps you understand my postion as if that's really what your interested in?

Ok...........so at this stage of the game who is being unscientific?

It's Ok that skeptics of the PGF do not find Bill Munns work convincing. But when are the skeptics going to get together and analyze the evidence as in depth as Bill Munns..........or debate him for that matter in a open forum?

Bud, I don't like your cotton ball analogy. It's much more like two teams building fence line..........and the Munns team is stretching wire.............and the other team hasn't gotten their first post sunk yet. ;)

It's all what you want it to be my friend ...

Does this really look like the breast of anything much less a Bigfoot that's spent 20, 30 50 years in the outdoors....I'd like to think this is a subject that I have some expertise in since my ex-wife was an exotic dancer for 10 years....

75C98A08-1C55-4C33-A1CC-D38A4254EBA5-162

Edited by Cervelo
To Remove Re-posted Images
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Now feel free to do some 'body proportion' analysis, Cervelo.

 

I suggest looking at Patty's 'arm proportion'. 

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

Well your entitled to your opnion but until a Bigfoot body shows up ya got nothing but your opinion.... I dont have to refute or replicate anything....like I said showing what it isn't doesn't prove what you think it is :)

 

Actually Cervelo, one doesn't need a Bigfoot body at all unless you are saying that the creature on Patterson's film is some other unknown species other than a Bigfoot. What DWA is saying is that you can put Bigfoot aside as a species and just compare the creature (which I assume you believe to be a man in a suit) and compare the alleged man in a suit's limb measurements to that of a man. In other words he has tested the skeptic claim by comparing an alleged man's limbs to that of a man's ... and to that you have not been able to show error in his work. So what he has done is show that the creature in Patterson's film isn't a man. dmaker cannot do it either and I suspect that is why he stays as far from engaging that problem as possible.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

Cervelo? Did you get dozens of women together and have them strip naked and you painted them completely gray and run a battery of tests on them? The results of which you can see in the video I posted?

 

I mean I respect that your wife was a dancer for 10 years and all, but compared to Munns? You aint got nuthin............ :no:

 

And I can one up you...........I've been a PacNW cowboy all of my life. And I say no PacNW cowboy is getting into a monkee suit that has 66 EEE tatas hanging off of the front of it!! You might as well ask him to wear a pink tutu and go dancing at a gay bar in Seattle.

 

I really do not care if the PGF is real or not............simply because it doesn't proof the existence of this species to science. So our energies can be better spent packing a rifle than a camera............you know all of this bud.

 

BUT! To say that your wife was a exotic dancer for 10 years so your qualified to call Munn's work BS? It's weak sauce..........that's all. No offense. Scientific method should win the debate every time. And right now science is not on the side of the skeptics.

 

But I would love for the JREF or whomever to get a panel together...........do their own study and show it publicly. And debate Munns on it.........that would be cool.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...