Jump to content
TD-40

Why Patterson And Gimlim Were Successful That Day.

Recommended Posts

Guest Bigfoothunter

 

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....

 

 

Your analogy is a bit whacked in my view. For one thing - you offer no proof what your ex-wife's breast look like under fur and equally distorted from motion blur and if we use your cop-out  of choice - a photo comparison won't do as an actual breast must be before us for study. See how lame that sounds now!

 

Another blatantly obvious flaw in your thinking is that a Sasquatch breast should even look like your ex-wife's breast. I've seen women's breast that didn't even look like other women's breast, thus your comparison doesn't even pass the laugh test. Your point was as silly as someone saying that a film of an alleged unknown species of hound dog must not be real because its breast do not look like that of one of their ex's breast.  (sigh~)

 

Now what you could have commented on was the muscle movement and hide stretching that the animation was designed to show as its been pointed out over and over again that such fabric in fur suits had not even been invented when Patterson shot his movie. That is something you can address if you can.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Cerv, I think you just wanted to brag a bit.  You guys are really making me roll my eyes a good deal with the current subject.  Honestly...  *shakes head* 

 

Cerv, are you saying dancing offers a lady the same workout as would be found having to live in the wild, off the land?  I would think muscle strength and usage would be a bit different between the two ladies in question as well. 

 

Okay, back to rolling my eyes and shaking my head.  Carry on..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest thermalman

Nothing against anyone, but I don't think BF could afford implants or have access to them? :maninlove:

Edited by thermalman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

:rolleyes: TM - I was counting the minutes before someone made that comment.  <_<

Edited by BigGinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bipedalist
BFF Patron

Let's just put it this way, Patty could have stashed a couple pencils to help Roger/Bob with notetaking if they broke theirs in the pursuit.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

--- pulling out MY pencil to add bipedalist to my list <_< :)

Edited by BigGinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

Cerv, I think you just wanted to brag a bit.  You guys are really making me roll my eyes a good deal with the current subject.  Honestly...  *shakes head* 

 

Cerv, are you saying dancing offers a lady the same workout as would be found having to live in the wild, off the land?  I would think muscle strength and usage would be a bit different between the two ladies in question as well. 

 

Okay, back to rolling my eyes and shaking my head.  Carry on..

 

*Sigh*

 

You pose a serious question.............and although it pains me, I guess I will volunteer to test this question in a scientific manner. We cannot take Cervelo's word for it!

 

I'm a little short on cash though, so if you could donate to my paypal account on this website below, I would be greatly indebted to you guys and gals:

 

www.norseeroticboobiestudy.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TedSallis

 

Cerv, I think you just wanted to brag a bit.  You guys are really making me roll my eyes a good deal with the current subject.  Honestly...  *shakes head* 

 

Cerv, are you saying dancing offers a lady the same workout as would be found having to live in the wild, off the land?  I would think muscle strength and usage would be a bit different between the two ladies in question as well. 

 

Okay, back to rolling my eyes and shaking my head.  Carry on..

 

*Sigh*

 

You pose a serious question.............and although it pains me, I guess I will volunteer to test this question in a scientific manner. We cannot take Cervelo's word for it!

 

I'm a little short on cash though, so if you could donate to my paypal account on this website below, I would be greatly indebted to you guys and gals:

 

www.norseeroticboobiestudy.com

 

 

 

You probably need a research partner, Norseman...just to share the workload and everything, right? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

Oh of course!* snigger* *giggles* workload...........

 

Huh? Wha?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

 

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.

 

For Pity's sake BH, I have no interest in Patty. That may be hard for you to believe, but I simply do not find it engaging at all. Why in the world would I try to duplicate something that does not interest me one bit? Please stop stating otherwise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

On the whole breast issue, I found out (with the much appreciated assistance of many real women) how varied the female breast is in shape, size, and the strength or weakness of the connective tissue within the mammary gland. My oldest study model was about 57, and most girls in their 20's would envy this lady's anatomical blessing of defying gravity. And these women were certified as 100% organic, no surgical enhancement, by a female nurse from my nearby hospital who routinely does breast exams for female patients and knows exactly what implants and surgical scars look like.

 

So in arguments of shape, size and the like, with Patty compared to a real woman, there are a lot of variables among real women, and some may have breasts like Patty, many don't. But what matters is all these studied real breasts have fluid dynamic motion, and so does Patty, and none of the breast prosthesis costume materials of 1967 have any fluid dynamic motion at all.  So in that regard, is was 100% like real, and 0% like costume breast prosthesis.

 

Now doubting people love to bring up the idea of a fluid-filled breast prosthesis in a costume. Fine. Name one before the late 1980's. And Charlie Gamora's often cited water filled belly for a gorilla costume in the 1940's doesn't hold water (metaphorically speaking) as "proof" because while Charlie's device has been vaguely described, nobody's actually shown us it worked, or that the design could be adapted to breasts. So it remains a bad analogy for wishful thinkers.

 

Now if somebody wants to show me the actual design of the thing Charlie made (real photos and/or technical details of what the water bag was made from) and show me the footage of him performing in his gorilla suit, where we can see "There;s where the belly ripples because of the water bag", I'll be glad to revise my remarks.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bipedalist
BFF Patron

Bill you certainly took one for the team in this study to date.  I'm looking forward to your future projects and additional funding to make it happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter

 

For Pity's sake BH, I have no interest in Patty.

 

 

Well you certainly have shown an interest to share your opinions and to proclaim the film a fake. So I ask myself who among us would bother to register with a BFF and then go on to post his or her opinions on something being fake while not wanting to know if their opinion is invalid if it could be shown to be invalid. It just seems peculiar to me .... call it my gut instinct if you like. But that's certainly your right as it is mine to discuss whether a gut feeling you had was enough to sway my opinion.

 

Then there is the question of whether someone really believes what they say or not. So we ask follow-up questions and weigh those responses that we get in return. You cannot blame others for wanting to see if you'd be the kind of person who has no other agenda than to get to the truth. On your opinion that 'Patty' is a fake ... Sweaty, WMA, and others have made it easy to test so to know if a man could really be responsible for the things observed on the creature. You see, if the measurements show that it could not possibly be a man inside a suit, that only leaves another live sppecimen to fit the bill ..... unless of course one needs to ponder other possible creatures that could theoretically be fit into a monkey suit while walking on two legs and leaving deep impressions in the ground???   :)   

 

I'm thinking that if it could be shown the creature was above ten feet in height, you'd probably think your gut feeling may have mislead you somehow as I'm sure the 'fake' possibility level would have dropped considerably - right? Well the measurements that have been put to you are just as powerful.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor

This is not meant to belittle Bill's work at all. But the PGF has not proven to convince skeptics about the POSSIBILITY of the existence of Sasquatch. It's not proof, and it never will be.

 

For those of us that find it compelling, Bill's work is incredible. But many people are just not going to take a hard look at it, because they believe it's impossible for something like Sasquatch in N. America to have eluded us for so long. Therefore any evidence to bolster the possibility of Sasquatch existing? Is a hoax.....pure plain and simple.

 

And the film is getting long in tooth, and while I support Bill's work, those of us that cannot contribute to the film should find other avenues in which to prove the existence of this species. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...