Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
norseman

Patty's Calf And Tricep

Recommended Posts

norseman

^^^^^

 

The point I'm trying to make is that while I find Bill's work very compelling? You cannot show a scientist how breasts move on women vs. a suit, IF the scientist feels they should not be there in the first place from a biological standpoint. His mind has already slammed shut before you can say "silicone".

 

So ultimately this is not the medium that will get us over the top. If I'm wrong? I'll rejoice with bells on.

 

Maybe your story about the scientist taking a interest in Patties gait, is a glimmer of hope. But it's been 50 years almost......that's a long time for science to take a harder look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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

What is not factual, based on what the scientist said, is what you quote skeptics as saying:

 

"see she said it science states patty could not exist"

 

What I take away from your post is that you have put words is the mouths of skeptic. That is disingenuous, and does not strengthen your argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Romano,

 

She (as one scientist) stated there reasons why she leaned away from the likelyhood based on probability.  She never said bigfoot could not or did not exist. She was explaining her reasoning why she thought this less likely.  Then she did indeed see the PGF for the first time in detail and was immediately impressed by the non human walk.

 

I was talking about only one person and that one person leaned skeptic. That one person also stated the PGF figure walked with a non human gait. She did not say it probably did. She took the film and stated what she observed as an expert. Why does that bother you?  Are you saying a skeptical scientist did not say that? The fact remains she gave her impression confirming the non human gait.  She was definitive 100% as this was not a qualified statement. She said it walks with a non human gait.  Thus, she is an expert, she is skeptical and leans away from the bigfoot belief. That same experts stated the gait was very non-human. Thus, "skeptical scientist states Patty has a non human gait"   just like I said.  not putting words in anyone's mouth.

 

Many can quickly dismiss this or that. Then when they take a deeper look at it with an educated eye there are in fact things about it that impressive to the mind.

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BobZenor

Backdoc, I think the person talking about the diet was probably Nina Jablonski in the show Best Evidence, bigfoot.

 

I think you are being too kind. 

She said:
 

 

No primate that we know of has the ability to hibernate.  Now this is real problem.  If you can't hibernate, if you can't get away from the lack of food,  you are going to get very, very, very thin in a hurry or you're going to die.  So I think bigfoot, the idea of it, becomes a physiological impossibility.

 

she also said

Apes are relatively big bodied creatures for the most part, but more importantly they have big brains and in order to supply those big brains with energy apes have to eat quite energy rich foods.  How can these animals live in an environment that is so poor in high quality foods.

An animal with a relatively big brain, which a bigfoot probably had, could not have lived.  Big brains require a lot of energy and cold environments or even seasonal environments, outside of the tropics, don't provide the foods that provide those energies. 

 

She also thinks they need to make nests at night to sleep in and since we never find anything like a night nest she presumably thinks they must not exist.  When speaking of the diet she is apparently forgetting the rough diet of mountain gorillas and the fact that large numbers of humans have survived in that environment and that humans are apes. 

 

 

There is a good video of that show online that shows Patty.  I honestly couldn't pick out any particular muscle in the video but in total it looks like a real creature to me or an exceptional person with hair glued on her entire body.  That doesn't seem plausible though considering the inhuman features like the apparent shape of the skull.

 

The good video I referred to is the 4th one on my monitor with the caption, Best Evidence: Origin of the Patterson Gimlin film and it is at about the 1 minute mark.

http://videos.howstuffworks.com/discovery/30761-best-evidence-bigfoot-gait-analysis-video.htm

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Backdoc, I think the person talking about the diet was probably Nina Jablonski in the show Best Evidence, bigfoot.

 

I think you are being too kind. 

She said:

 

she also said

 

She also thinks they need to make nests at night to sleep in and since we never find anything like a night nest she presumably thinks they must not exist.  When speaking of the diet she is apparently forgetting the rough diet of mountain gorillas and the fact that large numbers of humans have survived in that environment and that humans are apes. 

 

 

There is a good video of that show online that shows Patty.  I honestly couldn't pick out any particular muscle in the video but in total it looks like a real creature to me or an exceptional person with hair glued on her entire body.  That doesn't seem plausible though considering the inhuman features like the apparent shape of the skull.

 

The good video I referred to is the 4th one on my monitor with the caption, Best Evidence: Origin of the Patterson Gimlin film and it is at about the 1 minute mark.

http://videos.howstuffworks.com/discovery/30761-best-evidence-bigfoot-gait-analysis-video.htm

 

 

Yes you have the  right one.  Thanks for hunting this down.  I agree on issues of food supply as they are reasonable discussions to have.  I am interested in what she said at the end about the PGF.  Since I am saying she gives reasonable scientific points to tell where she leans she does not say they do not exist. Also, my point still is in spite of this she seem shaken to me when she looked at the patty gate.  Just my impression and she is just one scientist.  I was just using her as an example.  That is, someone who on one hand could lean skeptic.  THen we have her saying the gate is non human.  Thus again, we have a skeptical scientist i am talking about who leans one way in fact confirm her observation  Patty is non human in the gate.  Is there any dispute this gal states that Patty has a nonhuman gait?  She did not look at the video and say, "oh that things is walking like a guy in a suit.  That is a guy in a suit. It walks just like a person in a suit."

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

So you're telling me that EVERY witness, including many people on this forum, has been unreliable?

Misidentification, seeing what you want to see. Words and no proof. I am saying what makes it unrealiable is the fact it is immeasurable. No body on a slab. That is not a diss on any one person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb

You think every report is either misidentification, purposeful fraud or the person is delusional.  Let's take hunters, game wardens, biologists and other people whose stock in trade involves being in the outdoors. They clearly would not make a misidentification and any made would be so few as to not be a factor.

 

Therefore, your position is those people are frauds or delusional. Wow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Urkelbot

You think every report is either misidentification, purposeful fraud or the person is delusional.  Let's take hunters, game wardens, biologists and other people whose stock in trade involves being in the outdoors. They clearly would not make a misidentification and any made would be so few as to not be a factor.

 

Therefore, your position is those people are frauds or delusional. Wow.

Anyone who doesn't believe bigfoot exists would assume that anyone claiming to have seen Bigfoot falls under one of those choices.

Most of the country, 2/3, does not think there is any chance Bigfoot exists or could possibly exist. They therefore also believe it is liars, misidentification, fools, crazy, hallucinating, etc who are seeing Bigfoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Romano,

 

She (as one scientist) stated there reasons why she leaned away from the likelyhood based on probability.  She never said bigfoot could not or did not exist. She was explaining her reasoning why she thought this less likely.  Then she did indeed see the PGF for the first time in detail and was immediately impressed by the non human walk.

 

I was talking about only one person and that one person leaned skeptic. That one person also stated the PGF figure walked with a non human gait. She did not say it probably did. She took the film and stated what she observed as an expert. Why does that bother you?  Are you saying a skeptical scientist did not say that? The fact remains she gave her impression confirming the non human gait.  She was definitive 100% as this was not a qualified statement. She said it walks with a non human gait.  Thus, she is an expert, she is skeptical and leans away from the bigfoot belief. That same experts stated the gait was very non-human. Thus, "skeptical scientist states Patty has a non human gait"   just like I said.  not putting words in anyone's mouth.

 

Many can quickly dismiss this or that. Then when they take a deeper look at it with an educated eye there are in fact things about it that impressive to the mind.

I have no problem with anything that the scientist said, and that is self evident in my post. 

 

You may have been talking about what one scientist said, and that is just fine, but what bothers me, as you put it, is the response that you attribute to skeptics, in general, based on what that one scientist said:

"see she said it science states patty could not exist"

 

What is factual, based on what the nice, grey haired, lady, scientist said, is that no skeptic made any such comment.

Edited by Romano

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

You think every report is either misidentification, purposeful fraud or the person is delusional.  Let's take hunters, game wardens, biologists and other people whose stock in trade involves being in the outdoors. They clearly would not make a misidentification and any made would be so few as to not be a factor.

 

Therefore, your position is those people are frauds or delusional. Wow.

Lol. I never said that. I said it can not be considered hard evidence. I am a skeptic, but I am open to the possibility  of the creature existing. I have said on several occasions I see a creature in the Patterson film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

I have no problem with anything that the scientist said, and that is self evident in my post. 

 

You may have been talking about what one scientist said, and that is just fine, but what bothers me, as you put it, is the response that you attribute to skeptics, in general, based on what that one scientist said:

"see she said it science states patty could not exist"

 

What is factual, based on what the nice, grey haired, lady, scientist said, is that no skeptic made any such comment.

 

 

She said and confirmed the gait was non human.   <----- so the point is not missed.   Add her to the list of scientist who say that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Lol. I never said that. I said it can not be considered hard evidence. I am a skeptic, but I am open to the possibility  of the creature existing. I have said on several occasions I see a creature in the Patterson film.

 

 

If you see Patty as a real creature, PG...then you are actually a Bigfoot proponent. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

If you see Patty as a real creature, PG...then you are actually a Bigfoot proponent. :)

How, about a skeptical proponet. I see a creature, but it is illogical for such a creature to exist. I even confuse me sometimes.

I see one,but the rest of the evidence  I cannot accept. :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

How, about a skeptical proponent.

 

I see a creature, but it is illogical for such a creature to exist. I even confuse me sometimes. I see one, but the rest of the evidence  I cannot accept. :biggrin:

 

 

I find it difficult to accept that a living population of such a type creature could exist and remain unproven for so long, also, PG....but, I have a much more difficult time rejecting what I can see with my own eyes...  :o

 

'Arm proportion' being just one of them things. :)

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

She said and confirmed the gait was non human.   <----- so the point is not missed.   Add her to the list of scientist who say that

I am aware of what she said and have no problem with it. It is not now, nor was it ever the point of my post.

 

You continue to ignore the point that I made, that being that you set up a straw man by attributing a quote to skeptics that they did not make, and then you knocked it down.

 

Backdoc:

 

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

What you allege skeptics having said, based on what the scientist said, is part of nothing that is factual. 

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...