Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
norseman

Patty's Calf And Tricep

Recommended Posts

TD-40

I think Norse was only showing what looks like a line in the rear calf that could be calf muscles. I wouldn't expect these muscles to be identical to a human's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

This is a good topic even though, as usual, the PGf denials require a huge stretch of imagination.

 

post-131-0-08274900-1380682526_thumb.jpg

 

The calf muscles that are seen in motion in the PGf do not look like any Bigfoot costume ever, especially not like anything from 1967.  And, the Bob Heironimus 'hip wader' allegations are completely used up.  The 'concave thigh lines' are also natural as norseman and others have shown repeatedly

 

fat-thighs1.jpg

 

Not-with-standing every bird biologist actively posting on the BFF (and posting on the other site where most people know everything already); one might think that the PGf detractors would get tired of being wrong all the time....

Edited by xspider1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

I was just at a meeting of the NSRS this last weekend, in Hudson Falls, NY....and had the pleasure of hanging out for the afternoon with Brian Gosselin, who claimed to have seen a Sasquatch back in 1976. He's been actively searching since then, trying to cross-paths with another one of these creatures. That's only 37 years worth of active interest in the subject of 'Bigfoot'.

 

At the meeting, Brian said that he would love to be out there searching 6 days a week, if he had the freedom to do it.

 

 

As for myself....I trust his verbal testimony....since it has been backed-up by 37 years of active searching, and a close friendship with Bill Brann...along with the other members of the Group.   :)

 

 

You're welcome, Aaron! :)

I respect your trust of this said witness. My statement was a personal one. I stick to it. I will never tust  anything but a specimen. I have no doubt the witness thought he saw  an unexplained creature.  The power of  the mind is very complex. Capable of seeing lots of things and our memories change as we age. We often remember things that happened much different  than the way we remembered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

^^^^^^^^^^

 

I respect your assertion that you will trust nothing but a specimen, that's on par with what all of us should expect.

 

But I disagree with the whole concept of memory being able to see one thing such as a Deer and then flipping that into a Bigfoot. If that where the case, our society would be in disarray. Police officers could not make Police reports, our Military would be bombing Goats instead of SCUDS, and NASA would be sending probes in the wrong direction to the wrong planet.

 

Look at what Fish and Game expects from hunters:

 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/regulations/

 

 

Let's say your going to go Mule deer hunting.

 

The only species you can shoot is a Mule deer. So that means you cannot shoot, Mountain Goats, Bighorn Sheep, Elk, Moose, White tail deer, Black tail deer, nor Black Bear, Grizzly Bear, Cougar, Bobcat, Lynx, Coyotes, Wolves, etc.

 

On top of that, your tag is only good for Mule deer bucks, so you cannot shoot a doe. And probably depending on the area you are hunting there may be an antler restriction. Such as a three or four point restriction. 

 

So when you encounter a animal in the forest? All of this is racing through your mind and you are EXPECTED BY LAW to make the right call EVERY TIME. Otherwise your a poacher...........a criminal and can be if caught prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law which includes loss of hunting privileges, loss of vehicle, loss of rifle, subject to a fine and or imprisonment.

 

So no..........I don't think this is a very plausible explanation for wiping away what people are seeing.

 

I think there is a good portion of people out there that simply lie about what they see. Or they see something and they want to see Sasquatch so they simply embellish the truth like a fish story.

 

The rest? Well.........especially when accompanied by trace evidence or a very competent witness such as a Park Ranger? It's pretty hard to explain away really. Not that anecdotal accounts are going to replace a type specimen. But if your in the game of searching for a type specimen? Your ears perk up for sure.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

You know the muscular makeup of a bigfoot calf?

 

Or are you demonstrating that a human could not have a muscle composition as what is seen?

 

;-)

http://www.ghosttheory.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/patty2.jpg

 

You know the muscular makeup of a bigfoot calf?

Did you notice my post was in the form or a question, as well? 

 

I have serious doubts that bigfoot calves even exist. 

 

Or are you demonstrating that a human could not have a muscle composition as what is seen?

Norseman and Sweaty, both, have compared Patty's calf with images of human calves. Proponents fall all over themselves, gushing about Patty's muscular calf, implying that the single frame illustrates a muscular calf on the order of the images of human calves, posted by Norseman and Sweaty. It is not unreasonable, then, to expect that Paddy's Achilles tendon and heel, align similarly as the human calves to which they are being compared. Invoking unique sasquatch anatomy is alway an option.  

 

But, to answer your question, directly: no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

I respect your trust of this said witness. My statement was a personal one. I stick to it.

 

 

 

 

My statement regarding trusting Brian Gosselin was a personal one, also. :)

 

 

 

 

I will never trust  anything but a specimen. I have no doubt the witness thought he saw  an unexplained creature.  The power of  the mind is very complex. 

 

 

 

Well, since 'misidentification' and 'hallucination' are not options in Brian's case....then, if he does truly think he saw a Sasquatch...then he saw a Sasquatch. 

 

It's that simple.

 

 

 

 

Capable of seeing lots of things and our memories change as we age. We often remember things that happened much different  than the way we remembered.

 

 

 

Brian's story has never changed, since 1976.  And neither has the recorded testimony of Brian's....from when Bill Brann first interviewed Brian shortly after his sighting. Bill still has the tape.

 

Hence....'faded memory' is not an option, in Brian's case.

 

Since this was a multiple witness sighting report, over the course of two nights....'mass hallucination' is not an option.

 

Due to the close proximity of the subject to Brian, it's two very unhuman-like vocalizations, and the duration of the sighting....'misidentification' is not an option.

 

And due to Brian's 37 years of active follow-up, searching for these creatures....'lying' becomes a difficult option for me to accept. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Great points, Sweaty.  With lying, hallucinating, misidentifying and misremembering ruled out I think we're left with the truth being most likely that your friend saw exactly what he said he did.  I can understand why those who are completely incredulous to all things Bigfoot would need to dismiss eye-witness testimony as evidence but; to me, that way of looking at the phenomenon just doesn't make any sense.  8 B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
Norseman and Sweaty, both, have compared Patty's calf with images of human calves. Proponents fall all over themselves, gushing about Patty's muscular calf, implying that the single frame illustrates a muscular calf on the order of the images of human calves, posted by Norseman and Sweaty.

 

 

SEQUENCE2_zpsb1ea5081.gif

 

I think SY demonstrated the calve-muscle bulge with profiled images like that above. At the precise moment that the weight shifts forward - the calve-muscle bulges .... just like nature makes it happen. I do not consider that just merely imagining shapes from over contrasted shifting light changes on fur.

 

Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

Great points, Sweaty.  With lying, hallucinating, misidentifying and misremembering ruled out I think we're left with the truth being most likely that your friend saw exactly what he said he did.  I can understand why those who are completely incredulous to all things Bigfoot would need to dismiss eye-witness testimony as evidence but; to me, that way of looking at the phenomenon just doesn't make any sense.  8 B

Ruled out only by an opinion. Opinion is not facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Great points, Sweaty.  With lying, hallucinating, misidentifying and misremembering ruled out I think we're left with the truth being most likely that your friend saw exactly what he said he did. 

 

I can understand why those who are completely incredulous to all things Bigfoot would need to dismiss eye-witness testimony as evidence but; to me, that way of looking at the phenomenon just doesn't make any sense.  8 B

 

 

It doesn't make any sense to me, either, xspider... :)  Especially since I get to spend time with Brian on occasion, and see and hear him talking about his encounter.

 

Just one more note, about Brian's testimony. His wife is also a member of our group...(and goes on expeditions into the woods, searching for the creatures)....and she strongly supports Brian's account of what happened, back in '76.

 

I invite anybody who thinks Brian made-up his story...to talk to his wife, and ask her if she believes he is being honest, about it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

Thank you for the information.  I never doubted anyones honesty. I am sure most think they see what they think they saw.

I will let it go. No specimen = No proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

I wasn't saying that Brian's sighting report, and subsequent 37 years of follow-up activity....rises to the level of 'proof' of Bigfoot's existence.

What I give his story/follow-up interest for 'weight', as evidence favoring the creature's existence....is 'a whole heck of a lot'. :)

 

As I worded it..."'lying' becomes a difficult option for me to accept".

 

 

Patterson-Gimlin wrote:

 

Ruled out only by an opinion. Opinion is not facts.

 

 

 

Actually, PG...it's a matter of 'probabilities'....not simply 'opinions'. 

 

 

Most of the mundane explanations for Brian's sighting report carry a Zero 'degree of probability'.

 

'Faded memory' is sitting at 0% probability...because his original testimony was recorded, and has never changed.

 

'Hallucination' is a 0% probability...because it would require 4 people to have co-hallucinated the same creature...on two consecutive nights.

 

'Misidentification' is a 0% probability...because of the clarity of his alleged sighting. It could not have been a Bear....and neither could it have been a guy in a suit....because 'men in suits' look like a joke. And there were also the vocalizations.

 

As for 'lying'.....Brian's entire adult life's activities, following his sighting report in 1976....(along with his wife's support/activities)....indicate a very low probability that his alleged encounter was simply a lie. 

 

 

But...nonetheless....even a 'very high probability' falls short of 'proof', that the relevant proposition is true/real. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

Romano,

 

So your argument is is that the anatomy is incorrect when compared to a human?

 

What is the likely hood that three cowboys and a Phillip Morris gorilla costume could even invoke a debate like this? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

^

 

I wasn't saying that Brian's sighting report, and subsequent 37 years of follow-up activity....rises to the level of 'proof' of Bigfoot's existence.

What I give his story/follow-up interest for 'weight', as evidence favoring the creature's existence....is 'a whole heck of a lot'. :)

 

As I worded it..."'lying' becomes a difficult option for me to accept".

 

 

Patterson-Gimlin wrote:

 

 

Actually, PG...it's a matter of 'probabilities'....not simply 'opinions'. 

 

 

Most of the mundane explanations for Brian's sighting report carry a Zero 'degree of probability'.

 

'Faded memory' is sitting at 0% probability...because his original testimony was recorded, and has never changed.

 

'Hallucination' is a 0% probability...because it would require 4 people to have co-hallucinated the same creature...on two consecutive nights.

 

'Misidentification' is a 0% probability...because of the clarity of his alleged sighting. It could not have been a Bear....and neither could it have been a guy in a suit....because 'men in suits' look like a joke. And there were also the vocalizations.

 

As for 'lying'.....Brian's entire adult life's activities, following his sighting report in 1976....(along with his wife's support/activities)....indicate a very low probability that his alleged encounter was simply a lie. 

 

 

But...nonetheless....even a 'very high probability' falls short of 'proof', that the relevant proposition is true/real. :)

Fair enough. Now that  I can almost agree with.  Good explanation. Thank you. :hi:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Fair enough. Now that  I can almost agree with.  Good explanation. Thank you. :hi:

 

 

Very good, PG...glad we can agree, to some extent... :drinks: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...