Bigfoots With Breasts

[Guest DWA]

Although reading WSA's post, first he's right as regards reports and second the reasoning is sound, population biology says for critters like this that there are more females than males.

[Guest zenmonkey]

^ That's one thing that has always bothered me about the PGF. Patterson has a drawing in his book of a female BF with breasts and he then films one with breasts.

Yep, also im assuming he thought being a female would make it a little more realistic and or unusual . BOOBIES!!! sorry had to

[Guest DWA]

It is also worth pointing out that, as the position that the drawing led to Pattyfake requires that Patterson either deked the public - including trained scientists - or was deked himself, well, the chance that Patterson saw a female sasquatch is way higher than that the film was faked.

 

Again:  nothing is easier for people to prove than that a person did something.

 

If nothing such has surfaced in over 45 years...well, anyone who is convinced it happened is, as WSA might say, shoveling smoke.

 

(Not to mention which the fake is so superior to the drawing that it automatically activates the 'come on!' reflex in any properly skeptical person.)

[Guest zenmonkey]

It is also worth pointing out that, as the position that the drawing led to Pattyfake requires that Patterson either deked the public - including trained scientists - or was deked himself, well, the chance that Patterson saw a female sasquatch is way higher than that the film was faked.

 

Again:  nothing is easier for people to prove than that a person did something.

 

If nothing such has surfaced in over 45 years...well, anyone who is convinced it happened is, as WSA might say, shoveling smoke.

 

(Not to mention which the fake is so superior to the drawing that it automatically activates the 'come on!' reflex in any properly skeptical person.)

wait....i think you are onto a good point.....im not being snarky but could you better explain what you mean?

[roguefooter]

^ That's one thing that has always bothered me about the PGF. Patterson has a drawing in his book of a female BF with breasts and he then films one with breasts.

 

Patterson had multiple drawings of both males and females in his book. The odds of fashioning a female suit from drawings in his book are no different or greater than a male suit.

[Guest DWA]

What I mean is:

 

Saying "Patterson's drawing:   breasts!  Pattyfake:  BREASTS!!!!!!  COINCIDENCE?"  is kind of silly, because you've tipped your hand; you think that what happened is something for which there isn't Shred One of evidence.  In over 45 years.  And this, yes, coincidence is the thin reed on which you put your entire case.

 

It's like me alleging that you created the world because you did a really nice watercolor of Planet Earth.  Um, OK.  Now.  The wherewithal to actually create the planet?  Where's that?

 

And if your drawing is no better than Patterson's, says here, you are automatically disqualified as having faked that animal, which is demonstrably way diff from the drawing, which is nowhere near the quality that would have to obtain to serve as a blueprint for Patty.

 

In other words:  the whole thing is....I mean, COME ON NOW...!

Edited May 30, 2013 by DWA

[Rockape]

All I'm saying is it's one of the things that bothers me.

 

But it's NOT something that stops me from thinking the PGF is probably the real thing. But it does keep me saying "probably" instead of "certainly" .

[Oonjerah]

My own interpretation of the PGF must be equally as -- prejudiced.

 

That they filmed a female indicated to me that she was real, because 

... I anticipate that two men pretending to hunt Bf would choose to 

encounter a male.   Why? Because it'd be like Man to Man. A matter of 

courage. I assumed that a man who would fake an encounter would choose 

a male subject. 

 

(Hmmm. Gender of hoaxed Bfs. Daisy in a box was female. Hank of San 

Antonio was male.) 

[Guest zenmonkey]

Ya DWA I guess it doesn't really have any sway on the hoax/no hoax but for me it does come across my mind when i think about the film and its lore.

      For me when I watch the PGF I'm blown away by this huge animal on screen looks totally real or what i could assume a wood ape would look like.  

    Then again when I take in account all the back story to the 2 men that filmed it and the whole setting of the film I just hafta really scratch my head. I would LOVE for this to be without a doubt a real BF in the film but with all the lore I just dont know.   just my 2 cents

[Guest DWA]

I hear ya.  It's just that for me it all comes down to perceived competence:  for two cowboys, or for anybody, pretty much, in 1967.

 

The so-called skeptics do some not-so-skeptical cherrypicking, too.  They always talk about how Patterson wanted money, wanted notoriety, wanted to sell a film.

 

So he asks the Disney people:  did you do this?

 

They say:  Only we could have.  And we didn't.

 

You're telling me that a megabucks corporation dedicated to creating fantasy doesn't first, see at a glance how difficult this was to do and second, see the notoriety= $$$ potential in just taking credit?

 

Like I said:  cherrypicking, and not too skeptical.  As making the facts fit your belief system...well, isn't.

[Guest zenmonkey]

ya its just how much of a con man he was said to be and just so happens when he is gonna make a film about bigfoot he records one and it hasnt happened again.   but it can go either way its a total double edged sword, but I do tend to lean with it a hoax

[Guest]

Where is the skeptics great costume to prove the PG film is faked? Using late 1960's tech, they should have had a fake BF on film duplicating the PG film. So where is it?

[Squatchy McSquatch]

Replication goes both ways.

 

With the advent of technology in the last 20 years how could the creature in the Patterson, if real, not have been duplicated in a satisfactory manner?

 

How is it that only one man in the modern history of bigfoot was privy to photographic/cinematic proof.

 

Replicate that.

 

Patty had breasts because Roger, in his drawings, was interested in a sasquatch with breasts.

 

That's all.

[Guest DWA]

So Roger's God!  Which answers your other question.

 

Thanks for clearing that up!

 

Only, um, wait, there are several photos and video as compelling as P/G.  But I won't waste the discussion time with anyone who won't be satisfied until he sees one either in person or on TV.

[Guest]

So Roger's God!  Which answers your other question.

 

Thanks for clearing that up!

 

Only, um, wait, there are several photos and video as compelling as P/G.  But I won't waste the discussion time with anyone who won't be satisfied until he sees one either in person or on TV.

Which ones would those be?