Jump to content
kitakaze

Patterson/gimlin Vs Independence Day Footage - A Closer Look.

Recommended Posts

roguefooter

^Yeah no kidding. After his Brady moment "Something suddenly came up..", all he's done here is call the kettle black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chelefoot

If you're interested so much in effective proof, what are you doing preaching to the choir year after year? Why is the scientific community not getting Patty blinks and pant-hoot gifs and best of Patty collages? Does your confidence not extend beyond Internet forums?

 

I very much am against quote-mining. The original exchange...

 

KK: Bigfoot enthusiasts cite Meldrum's and Munns' Relict Hominid Inquiry paper as proof that the PGF film subject is not possibly a man in a suit. As an anthroplogist, what is your professional opinion on this paper and that claim?

 

http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf

 

TD:The film is not convincing to me at all and I think the case Prothero makes for fraud/hoax is quite credible, more so than the film.

 

Nevertheless, I've asked him for his commentary specifically on the paper.

Well, it's not news that Todd is not convinced by the film. But I would like him to comment specifically on the science that has been done to show that Patty is not a man in a suit. I would also like to see any science he has done to back up his stance that it is a hoax. I'm more than open to other alternatives than what Meldrum/Munns have come up with. Wonder when that paper will come out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

There hasn't been any Science that shows that Patty's not a bloke in a suit.

 

Please direct me to one or two or all of them.

 

That's why Disotell's credentials have Standing in this area, pardon the pun.


What credence does the PGF have over the IDF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Yes, absolutely. I know walk differently wearing very oversized shoes. I have to lift my legs more to clear all the extra shoe in front of my toes. Try it yourself. Wearing oversized footwear alters the way you walk.

This is silly. Ramsay IS wearing oversized shoes and he does NOT walk with a high shin rise. That destroys your argument. Where his toes end up in his oversized shoes is irrelevant. According to you it's his oversized SHOES that redefine his gait, not his feet. At least that is your argument against Patty. So what the heck are you talking about then? Your logic is not only circular but lacking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

There hasn't been any Science that shows that Patty's not a bloke in a suit.

 

Please direct me to one or two or all of them.

 

That's why Disotell's credentials have Standing in this area, pardon the pun.

What credence does the PGF have over the IDF?

So Disotell would know a sasquatch when he sees one because he's a primatologist? Ok. Is it because he knows bigfeet are 1st cousins of humans and therefore must be primates? He knows that if sasquatches existed they would look just like humans in hairy suits. So then, what exactly is non-primate about Patty that Disotell doesn't buy into? Where is HIS scientific biometric analysis of the PGF that gives him a modicum of cred? And how much cred would the skeptics give him if he landed on the other side of this debate and the shoe was on the other foot? The skeptics would be lining up to crucify him.

Edited by Gigantofootecus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

There hasn't been any Science that shows that Patty's not a bloke in a suit.

 

 

 

Yeah, a bloke "to be named later"....on the 12th of never... :lol:

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

This is silly. Ramsay IS wearing oversized shoes and he does NOT walk with a high shin rise. 

 

Where is that? The only image posted is of him sitting on a couched with his boot-clad foot on a table. Ramsay doesn't walk with a shin rise because he doesn't wear footwear that extends well beyond his own feet. Give him a pair of size 18 fake big feet, and he's going to be lifting his legs higher.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Is that a train whistle I just heard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

So Disotell would know a sasquatch when he sees one because he's a primatologist? Ok. Is it because he knows bigfeet are 1st cousins of humans and therefore must be primates? He knows that if sasquatches existed they would look just like humans in hairy suits. So then, what exactly is non-primate about Patty that Disotell doesn't buy into? Where is HIS scientific biometric analysis of the PGF that gives him a modicum of cred? And how much cred would the skeptics give him if he landed on the other side of this debate and the shoe was on the other foot? The skeptics would be lining up to crucify him.

 

He can look at the footage and discern if it is convincing or not based on his expertise at the anatomy and characteristics of primates. 

 

He can look at the hairy breasts and take issue with it as many other scientists. No, Patty's breasts do not look like gorilla breasts...

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3456/3931089681_8b112bab3c.jpg

 

We can look and see that by Patty's jutting chest rockets, she should be lactating, as in with young. Where's young? She left baby in the bush while she went down to the creek? That is not primate in the wild behaviour.

 

I have never seen any biometric lines and dots on Patty, Bob or anyone from you that looked to come even close to ruling out an average human wearer.

 

Disotell is a world authority on primates if the PGF is not convincing to him professionally, nor Meldrum's and Munn's analysis, the validation attempt has failed. Jane Goodall thinks Bigfoot is real and admits as a romantic, she wants to believe. Skeptics don't crucify her for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 Where is the link to his research to back his opinion? How do we know Patty should be lactating? Do you know something about what she is we don't? How do you know she has young? Again, do you know something we don't know about, both physically in your assumption of young, and of course your advanced knowledge of her species behavior? Very impressive knowledge for a layman who is a skeptic......or are you just making wild guesses? I think your making wild guesses, and I think Mr Disotell has every right to his opinion, but thats all it is without research. Maybe you could co-author a paper with him Kit..... you could release in conjunction with your documentary and just slam dunk it.....take it off the forum Kit, make it real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 

I have never seen any biometric lines and dots on Patty, Bob or anyone from you that looked to come even close to ruling out an average human wearer.

 

 

Patty-Chabal-ArmProportionComp5_zpsb5853

 

 

kitakaze wrote:

 

I see just what Bob described...........it blew me away when I first saw it.

 

 

:bbq:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

We can look and see that by Patty's jutting chest rockets, she should be lactating, as in with young. Where's young? She left baby in the bush while she went down to the creek? That is not primate in the wild behaviour.

 

Since no-one is an expert on BF, I am wondering how you know enough about them to be able to make this statement, or is this conjecture??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

 

Disotell is a world authority on primates if the PGF is not convincing to him professionally, nor Meldrum's and Munn's analysis, the validation attempt has failed.

 

There are scientists that reject science all the time, no matter how credible or incredible. Even things like global warming to the big bang to evolution have all been rejected by scientists. By your logic all of these points are fails.

 

 

We can look and see that by Patty's jutting chest rockets, she should be lactating, as in with young. Where's young? She left baby in the bush while she went down to the creek? That is not primate in the wild behaviour.

 

 

I don't even know what to say about this. Your knowledge of Bigfoot seems to have advanced beyond the habituation people.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

"I don't even know what to say about this. Your knowledge of Bigfoot seems to have advanced beyond the habituation people."

 

I detect a bit of a double standard in this comment. Proponents frequently point to known primate behaviors depicted in the anecdotal bigfoot reports as indicators of authenticity. But when a skeptic points out a discrepancy in alleged bigfoot behavior that does not align with known primate behavior it suddenly becomes a wild, baseless statement? 

Edited by dmaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Yes, that is right Dmaker, because for the most part, and not always mind you( acknowledging some accuracy to your statement), the proponent will point out something behaviorally or physically that nature has demonstrated as previously occurring, for instance some of Patty's physical characteristics, for example the breasts themselves as being physically and anatomically correct, complete with the level of firmness, as has been demonstrated by nature in the past involving similar species. One could even speculate that she could be lactating, and that might indicate the nearby presence of offspring, 

 

"We can look and see that by Patty's jutting chest rockets, she should be lactating, as in with young. Where's young? She left baby in the bush while she went down to the creek? That is not primate in the wild behaviour."

 

This statement is not really a comparison is it Dmaker? This is more of a fringe statement, like we have seen from such extreme proponents, who I will leave unnamed, but usually associated with wild habituation claims and some very imaginative conclusions. I think this is a pretty imaginative conclusion on the skeptical side, and carries about as much weight as a proponent claiming Bigfoot can teleport.  

 

Cue the skeptical pink unicorn pic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...