Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
norseman

Patty's Calf And Tricep

Recommended Posts

Patterson-Gimlin

I am glad also. I respect your  efforts.  I have said so in other threads. I am not your typical narrow minded skeptic.  I hope you respect that.  You must understand  I am a man of science.  It is my nature to be skeptical. 

I may not believe in footprints and  eye witness testimony ,but  I have never dissed the Patterson film.

Edited by Patterson-Gimlin
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

^^^^^^^^^^

 

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.

Thank you for great explanation  and the link.  I am also glad you understand my position.  i am a scientist.  No specimen  . No proof.  God bless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

I am glad also. I respect your efforts. I have said so in other threads. I am not your typical narrow minded skeptic. I hope you respect that. You must understand I am a man of science. It is my nature to be skeptical.

I may not believe in footprints and eye witness testimony ,but I have never dissed the Patterson film.

Thanks for the positive comment, PG...I appreciate it. :)

I do respect skepticism of Bigfoot's existence. There is a difference, though, between moderate skepticism...and the extreme skepticism of simply scoffing at every last bit of evidence for the creature's existence. That's the common form of "skepticism" found on Bigfoot Discussion Forums.

But, you seem to be one of the few exceptions to that rule, PG... :drinks:

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Romano,

 

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

 

I suggested that Patty's Gastrocnemius is severely displaced if you are going to use a human's lower leg as a comparison.

 

Are you suggesting that the anatomy is correct when compared to a human's?

 

 

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

 

My personal opinion is that Roger Patterson, Bob Gimlin, and at least 1 other person was involved with the filming of the PGF.

 

I do not have an opinion as to who the third person involved, was.

 

Don't know, for sure, whether or not it was a Philip Morris costume used, but a suit or costume, was. 

Edited by Romano

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

Don't know, for sure, whether or not it was a Philip Morris costume used, but a suit or costume, was. 

 

 

Patty is most definitely not a 'Morris suit', Romano...in any way, shape or form. You, and everyone else here, should be certain of that.

 

I don't have time right now, to elaborate on all of the differences between Patty and a Morris rug...but, Phil Morris claims that he sold Roger a suit in August, '67....and that would give Roger only about 9 weeks to perform the 'transformation of the Century'. And, if you believe what Phil says...he said that Roger called him shortly after receiving the suit, and asked how he could make the subject look bigger/bulkier around the shoulders.

 

If Roger needed advice on such a simple detail...then how the heck did he ever make the rear end of the "suit" so perfectly large and rounded, with curves matching the contour of real Primates...(as shown in the Gorilla comparisons in Bill's Paper...and on the Forum)???

 

And, how did he create the rest of the tightly-contoured "suit", along with the remote-controlled hands???

 

Dfoot spent months trying to replicate Patty, as a suit....and failed on many counts. One thing is for certain...Roger could not possibly have transformed a Morris suit into Patty...in only a handful of weeks. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

I wonder if they shot a Bigfoot and it looked just like Patty would this change the view of the PGF of 1967 after we had proof the exist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Urkelbot

Unless the Bigfoot shot looked radically different everyone would probably accept the film. It would be really odd though if a bigfoot corpse was obtained and didn't match the pgf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Patty is most definitely not a 'Morris suit', Romano...in any way, shape or form. You, and everyone else here, should be certain of that.

 

I don't have time right now, to elaborate on all of the differences between Patty and a Morris rug...but, Phil Morris claims that he sold Roger a suit in August, '67....and that would give Roger only about 9 weeks to perform the 'transformation of the Century'. And, if you believe what Phil says...he said that Roger called him shortly after receiving the suit, and asked how he could make the subject look bigger/bulkier around the shoulders.

 

If Roger needed advice on such a simple detail...then how the heck did he ever make the rear end of the "suit" so perfectly large and rounded, with curves matching the contour of real Primates...(as shown in the Gorilla comparisons in Bill's Paper...and on the Forum)???

 

And, how did he create the rest of the tightly-contoured "suit", along with the remote-controlled hands???

 

Dfoot spent months trying to replicate Patty, as a suit....and failed on many counts. One thing is for certain...Roger could not possibly have transformed a Morris suit into Patty...in only a handful of weeks. :)

 

Okay, Sweaty, I'm re-reading the portion of "The Making Of Bigfoot", regarding Philip Morris. ;)

 

But, what about the main point of my post: 

 

@ norseman:

 

"I suggested that Patty's Gastrocnemius is severely displaced if you are going to use a human's lower leg as a comparison.

Are you suggesting that the anatomy is correct when compared to a human's?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I wonder if they shot a Bigfoot and it looked just like Patty would this change the view of the PGF of 1967 after we had proof the exist?

If I understand your hypothetical, correctly, the answer is, yes; however, that would involve resolving a few details, that, as yet, have not been resolved, regarding the PGF.

Unless the Bigfoot shot looked radically different everyone would probably accept the film. It would be really odd though if a bigfoot corpse was obtained and didn't match the pgf.

Assuming that you believe that bigfoots exist, and, that you are a PGF proponent, how is it that you arrived at that conclusion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Urkelbot

I don't really believe in Bigfoot but haven't complete ruled it out. I'm not really a proponent of pgf either but I haven't seen anything that definenitly points to hoax.

But if Bigfoot exists I would assume the pgf was authentic. I would find it strange if Bigfoot exists and the pgf was a hoax. Unlike some I dont think it likely at all there are multiple species of Bigfoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Okay, Sweaty, I'm re-reading the portion of "The Making Of Bigfoot", regarding Philip Morris. ;)

 

 

 

There really isn't any need to read what Long wrote, about Phil Morris' claim, Romano... :) ....it is absolutely impossible for the alleged "Patty suit" to be a Morris suit. There are just too many differences between them.

 

About the only thing they have in common is 'number of limbs', and 'number of Torso's'. 

 

At some point, I'll list all of the differences. Here is a short list, for now...

 

1) The head

2) The hands

3) The feet

4) The breasts

5) The color

6) The hair length

 

That's good for starters. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Patty is most definitely not a 'Morris suit', Romano...in any way, shape or form. You, and everyone else here, should be certain of that.

 

I don't have time right now, to elaborate on all of the differences between Patty and a Morris rug...but, Phil Morris claims that he sold Roger a suit in August, '67....and that would give Roger only about 9 weeks to perform the 'transformation of the Century'. And, if you believe what Phil says...he said that Roger called him shortly after receiving the suit, and asked how he could make the subject look bigger/bulkier around the shoulders.

 

If Roger needed advice on such a simple detail...then how the heck did he ever make the rear end of the "suit" so perfectly large and rounded, with curves matching the contour of real Primates...(as shown in the Gorilla comparisons in Bill's Paper...and on the Forum)???

 

And, how did he create the rest of the tightly-contoured "suit", along with the remote-controlled hands???

 

Dfoot spent months trying to replicate Patty, as a suit....and failed on many counts. One thing is for certain...Roger could not possibly have transformed a Morris suit into Patty...in only a handful of weeks. :)

Sweaty, you don't believe that any amount of time would be enough to complete the "transformation of a lifetime" :)

 

Forgive me, but I did re-read the last chapter on Philip Morris.

 

There is nothing conclusive, as far as proof that Morris delivered a suit to Roger, but one must conclude that he is a monumental liar if you believe that he didn't.

 

There is always the possibility that Roger did not use the Morris suit, and that is why you see so many discrepancies, but that does not resolve the issue of Morris claiming that Roger purchased a suit from him. 

 

I remain unsure as to whether or not a Morris suit was involved.

 

More later. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Sweaty, you don't believe that any amount of time would be enough to complete the "transformation of a lifetime" :)

 

 

 

More importantly, Romano...I know...with absolute 100% ROCK SOLID certainty....that Roger could not have transformed a Morris suit into "the Patty suit" within a 9-week time frame.   :)

 

The changes required are too many...and too drastic, for it to have been accomplished in such a short amount of time.

 

 

Forgive me, but I did re-read the last chapter on Philip Morris.

 

There is nothing conclusive, as far as proof that Morris delivered a suit to Roger, but one must conclude that he is a monumental liar if you believe that he didn't.

 

There is always the possibility that Roger did not use the Morris suit, and that is why you see so many discrepancies, but that does not resolve the issue of Morris claiming that Roger purchased a suit from him. 

 

 

 

I think that Phil Morris may well have sold Roger a suit, in the month of August...and, if he did, it was simply for use in Roger's documentary. It had nothing to do with Patty.

 

 

 

I remain unsure as to whether or not a Morris suit was involved.

 

More later.  :)

 

 

Someday I may start a thread detailing all of the differences between a Morris suit and Patty.

 

I thought about doing it quite a while ago, but never bothered to create the thread, because I don't think it's really necessary. But, it might be worth doing, anyway. 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

Romano,

Iam saying that I find similarities between a human calf and patty. Not that they are exactly the same.

Iam not even convinced that if patty is a 60's suit? We could be having this discussion.

Obviously a very large bipedal ape is going to have anatomical differences and similarities with a modern human. I bet there are others as well that will not be revealed until we have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

 

There is nothing conclusive, as far as proof that Morris delivered a suit to Roger, but one must conclude that he is a monumental liar if you believe that he didn't.

 

 

Well just in the short time that Morris has been involved with all of this he's been caught in lies, story changes, and misrepresentations.

 

He claimed he wasn't doing any of this for financial gain, but then sends his customers a flyer advertising his 'involvement' and having a "Bigfoot Sale" to sell his customers more merchandise. He displays his new suit at his Halloween events and advertises it as "the original costume that fooled millions" in order to sell more tickets.

 

His story about selling Roger the suit also changed. He said Roger sent him the money 2-3 months later after he initially called in August, which would mean he got the suit around late October-November. Those are just the things off the top of my head.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...