Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
norseman

Patty's Calf And Tricep

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

Thank you Bill and Sweti. You're both spot on. I wanted to flush out the issue as many people only think of skin, blood, or bodies as "hard evidence". 

 

That couldn't be farther from the truth and the truth is sometimes very difficult to accept.

 

 

You're welcome, wiia... :)

 

It is a point worth making....though, I think it's ridiculous that it needs to be made. Photo/film images can obviously provide 'hard evidence' of certain things. If someone were to get pictures, or video, of a Sasquatch at a close enough range, it could potentially be strong enough evidence for mainstream scientists to accept the creature's existence....and, possibly even catalogue it.

 

 

The level of resolution in the PGF may not be quite enough to get such a creature officially recognized by mainstream scientists....but the resolution is high enough for it to eventually become very strong, and possibly 'hard' evidence for the creature's existence.

 

That is the direction the evidence is moving in, as the analysis goes on...it's becoming stronger, in favor of Patty being a real creature.   :)

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

The requirement of a specimen is a point of view held by many, and I understand that idea. But I also understand that with other forms of empirical evidence, if a hoax or fake can be ruled out to a certainty, then we are left with that overused but none-the-less true phrase, "When you've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, is the solution."

 

This idea, however, I acknowledge, is a point of contention with many, and certainly diverging opinions must be respected.

 

Bill

 

Since the beginning there was just something about that film.......all my buddies would laugh and call it a hoax, while I was not so sure. The bulk of that creature jumps out at me.......and the more I look at it the more convinced I become it's real.

 

This is what drives me to collect a type specimen, this and my own track way experience.

 

I want to thank you again Bill for all of the hard work you have done on this film, very compelling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

It's awful hard to hoax something in space since other astronomers can look in the exact spot and get the same data. Medical diagnostic can be repeated to rule out a hoax or false data. This can't be done with any of the photographic Bigfoot evidence, most of which is terrible.

Hard evidence should leave no other conclusions.

Even the best example, the pgf, you acknowledge in your published paper a hoax can't be completly ruled out.

A hoax isn't ruled out by that specific paper's range of analysis. It is ruled out completely by the other research currently being prepared for publication, but if you want to only acknowledge what's been published, you are certainly entitled to personally take that position.

 

I look at it from the total that I know based on my total analysis. There is no hoax. Certainty is 100%

 

Conveying that fact to you and others here will take some time, but that is the inevitable end result.

 

Bill

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Urkelbot

I am looking foward to reading them. Hopefully you will have more than "in my experience as a costume maker no one could or would have done this" to conclude your evidence.

I think it's wishful thinking to ever get 100% certainty on the film. Even moreso to get the majority of the scientific community and people of the world to swallow that. Barring any real hard evidence of Bigfoots existence coming foward, which might make your research obsolete anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

There is a lot more than observations from my personal experience. There are studies of anatomical biology and fabricated material tests (which are repeatable if others are so inclined) which are 100% positive for real anatomy, and 0% positive for fabricated materials in the pipeline for publication. But there is a division of outlook, where some people (not impliying any one personally) cling to a theoretical "it's possible" and disregard the more pragmatic "it's not probable or practical".  So there will always be some disagreement on what is a 100% certainty and what is not.

 

I do disagree about new hard evidence would make my work obsolete, because new biological evidence found today would still not prove the filmed subject from 46 years ago is real. It would certainly strengthen the general position that it might be real, but my work authenticating the film will remain a valid endeavor. It will not have been a waste of my time, of that I am sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The PGF can never be proven to contain a sasquatch. The most an analysis can do is persuade you. If it's peer-reviewed then it has gone thru the rigors of a formal scientific review. But it obviously doesn't prove anything. Most research papers aren't trying to prove a thesis. They are usually testing a hypothesis attempting to elevate it to a theory. And if some skeptics don't even believe evolution has been proven, then what luck does the PGF have?

 

The ONLY way to even come close to demonstrating that the PGF is authentic is to measure Patty's images and the PGF film site. Everything else is incidental and subjective, including the backstory. If it ain't definitive on the film or at the site, it's inadmissible, period. That is, as far as proving anything goes.

 

The only thing that can give us some answers beyond the hearsay is the film itself. It is the main piece of physical evidence to whether Patty was a sasquatch. But we can't advance this by speculating on outer features of Patty. The film quality (which was very good mostly) and some of the photo-metrics are lacking for us to claim a line or a bulge is this or that. The one thing I can state with confidence is that the suit has no definitive tells. Certainly not like some of the PGF skeptics like to think. Some  PGF skeptics describe the "crappy" suit as having disintegrated right before our eyes with each step. But it's all speculation. Thigh lines can be hair interfaces and skin can subduct/fold and create lines like a suit would. These features just aren't reliable tells of a suit.

 

The answer lies with measuring Patty's body dimensions. Fine details are out, but there is enough info to create a 3D model of Patty accurate enough to base conclusions on. Such as, whether Bob Heironimus was in the suit. We know his dimensions, so how do Patty's compare? When we are confident with our model, we can perform inter-membral measurements and see how they compare to humans. And if Patty gets placed into the 1 percentile group then the PGF skeptics have some splainin' to do to refute it. And if the analysis is done transparently and passes muster, then the onus is on them to rebut with the same rigor as went into the analysis.

 

So far I haven't seen much rebuttal over the years. The PGF skeptics counter is usually what I call the "You Can't Do That" fallacy.  Because that would make bigfoot real, and we all know that is not the case. Ergo, your analysis is flawed and you fail.

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb

I am looking foward to reading them. Hopefully you will have more than "in my experience as a costume maker no one could or would have done this" to conclude your evidence.

I think it's wishful thinking to ever get 100% certainty on the film. Even moreso to get the majority of the scientific community and people of the world to swallow that. Barring any real hard evidence of Bigfoots existence coming foward, which might make your research obsolete anyway.

If you haven't read through Bill's exhaustive treatise on the PGF, then you are without benefit of the most detailed suit analysis anywhere. I followed those treatises as they occurred from start to finish and they leave little doubt in my mind whether Patty is real.

 

I also harken back to Giganto's analysis of Patty's ASH ratio and would welcome you to comment on it.

 

Edited to add this one last comment.

 

If a researcher were to have any concern about what other developments are occurring as his research is being performed, no research would ever get done. A body brought to the table today would certainly NOT make Bill's analysis obsolete. To the contrary, it would serve to illuminate the masterful, Sherlock Holmes-like, pay-attention-to-every-detail, reconstruction of an impossible puzzle Bill has pieced, and continues to piece, together. His tireless efforts almost leave me speechless...and that's saying something!  The smae can be said of Sweti and Giganto. Truly a PGF Hall of Fame front court!!

Edited by wiiawiwb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

Thank you.

 

The PGF is truly a world-class mystery, and so an exhaustive evaluation and analysis is simply worthy of the complexity of the mystery, and the ramifications we are left(with (when a hoax and a fur sur are eliminated as options) are profound.

 

One day it will be fully appreciated for the fascinating and extraordinary event that it was and continues to be. I will always be pleased that I could help raise the bar on appreciation of this mystery and it's most rational solution, as supported by disciplined scientific analysis.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Urkelbot

I don't have any disagreements with the details of the analysis. When I read them, look at the photos, watch the video it makes me believe. But the lack of any physical evidence, not footprints, or good photos keeps me stuck on the fence. So I can't rule out a really great or really lucky suit.

As far as the film analysis being obsolete I mostly mean if there was a body recovered, and it matched the pgf, everyone would accept it being authentic. Yes maybe useful data could still be gathered physical biometrics or whatever. Or if all that was recovered was DNA or a body part the film analysis would be useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

Science has already spoken on the PGF, it did so almost 50 years ago. They see the creature as some sort of Chimera.

 

Apes only sport breasts while nursing.

 

Apes do not live in colder climates.

 

Female apes do not have sagittal crests.

 

Apes do not walk upright.

 

They have picked the thing apart from a biological standpoint.......so they of course never went further with asking whether or not muscles could be seen or what it would take to make a suit like that.

 

So do I think Bill's work is going to change minds in the scientific community? No. They want proof in the form of a body or body parts......

 

What I do think Bill's work does is lend credibility to our pursuit and perhaps gets people riding the fence to maybe take it more seriously. And we proponents are indebted to him for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

If you haven't read through Bill's exhaustive treatise on the PGF, then you are without benefit of the most detailed suit analysis anywhere. I followed those treatises as they occurred from start to finish and they leave little doubt in my mind whether Patty is real.

 

I also harken back to Giganto's analysis of Patty's ASH ratio and would welcome you to comment on it.

 

Edited to add this one last comment.

 

If a researcher were to have any concern about what other developments are occurring as his research is being performed, no research would ever get done. A body brought to the table today would certainly NOT make Bill's analysis obsolete. To the contrary, it would serve to illuminate the masterful, Sherlock Holmes-like, pay-attention-to-every-detail, reconstruction of an impossible puzzle Bill has pieced, and continues to piece, together. His tireless efforts almost leave me speechless...and that's saying something!  The same can be said of Sweti and Giganto. Truly a PGF Hall of Fame front court!!

 

 

Thank you very much, wiia... :)  

 

There are two main reasons why I'm spending so many hours on this amazing piece of film footage....they are Patty...  :ph34r: ....and Roger Patterson... :bow:

 

I don't think that anybody's time is wasted, working on this Film...IMO, it deserves a thorough, in-depth scientific analysis. And that is what it's going to continue to get.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb

Science has already spoken on the PGF, it did so almost 50 years ago. They see the creature as some sort of Chimera.

 

Apes only sport breasts while nursing.

 

Apes do not live in colder climates.

 

Female apes do not have sagittal crests.

 

Apes do not walk upright.

 

They have picked the thing apart from a biological standpoint.......so they of course never went further with asking whether or not muscles could be seen or what it would take to make a suit like that.

 

So do I think Bill's work is going to change minds in the scientific community? No. They want proof in the form of a body or body parts......

 

What I do think Bill's work does is lend credibility to our pursuit and perhaps gets people riding the fence to maybe take it more seriously. And we proponents are indebted to him for that.

Science had also spoken when it believed, for 3,000 years, in routine blood letting as a helpful practice. How did that turn out? You might want to inquire what George Washington's wife Martha thought about it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Science has already spoken on the PGF, it did so almost 50 years ago. They see the creature as some sort of Chimera.

 

Apes only sport breasts while nursing.

 

Apes do not live in colder climates.

 

Female apes do not have sagittal crests.

 

Apes do not walk upright.

 

They have picked the thing apart from a biological standpoint.......so they of course never went further with asking whether or not muscles could be seen or what it would take to make a suit like that.

 

So do I think Bill's work is going to change minds in the scientific community? No. They want proof in the form of a body or body parts......

 

What I do think Bill's work does is lend credibility to our pursuit and perhaps gets people riding the fence to maybe take it more seriously. And we proponents are indebted to him for that.

 

 

I like your reasoning.  At least that list confirms Patty is not an ape.  Now, I have seen a few exceptions to some of those things (japanese snow monkeys), Ape in a zoo walking briefly on 2 feet. Grover Krantz stated the Sagital crest is a function of size not of sex due to how the jaw would attach.

 

If patty is fake there should be obvious signs of fakery on the PGF.  

I have no beef with those who compare reasonable issues such as you did here. Food supply to me would be an issue.

 

In spite of all of this we could agree if patty is real, patty might be more related to people than to ape. As you point out, patty does not seem very ape-like from your list.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

Science had also spoken when it believed, for 3,000 years, in routine blood letting as a helpful practice. How did that turn out? You might want to inquire what George Washington's wife Martha thought about it.

 

Evidently you believe in shooting the messenger..........

I like your reasoning.  At least that list confirms Patty is not an ape.  Now, I have seen a few exceptions to some of those things (japanese snow monkeys), Ape in a zoo walking briefly on 2 feet. Grover Krantz stated the Sagital crest is a function of size not of sex due to how the jaw would attach.

 

If patty is fake there should be obvious signs of fakery on the PGF.  

I have no beef with those who compare reasonable issues such as you did here. Food supply to me would be an issue.

 

In spite of all of this we could agree if patty is real, patty might be more related to people than to ape. As you point out, patty does not seem very ape-like from your list.

 

Backdoc

 

It's not my reasoning and I absolutely think Patty is an Ape.

 

I gave reasons why SCIENTISTS rejected the PGF, from accounts that I've read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Norsemen.

 

I at least respect those scientist who can at least define what their preconceived "bias" is. Now I am not saying this 'bias' is not a reasonable bias.  They at least say, "look here is a partial list here of some of the reasons I am more inclined to dis-believe the PGF"  Many of these shows featuring people like this start with that premise.  It is funny though in one of these shows a very nice gray haired lady scientist (sorry I don't know her name thus my description) said "I am not sure there is the food supply necessary esp if this creature would be thought to be a vegetarian" 

 

then When they showed her the PGF she immediately looked intrigued and stated, "that walk is very non-human and non ape"

 

What are we to take away from it. The skeptics say, "see she said it science states patty could not exist"  The full story is that scientist stated she doubts it based on what she states is conventional wisdom about apes.  But it should also read, "SKEPTICAL SCIENTIST CONFIRMS PATTY'S WALK IS NON-HUMAN"  Both are EQUALLY factual.  

 

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...