Jump to content
kitakaze

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

Recommended Posts

Daniel Perez

Does anyone have contact information for the person who videotaped "Bigfoot filmed Independence Day." Also, does anyone know the exact location of the film site?

 

Thanks,

 

Daniel Perez

Bigfoot Times

951 522-7334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 Do you think Ramsay would walk differently if he wore size 15 shoes but his feet were size 12? 

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^

 

 

Kit,

 

I agree with you (with a few minor differences).  If a person has something making their foot longer such as clown feet they must lift the heel higher toward the buttock.  That is, they walk differently.  The 'clown foot walk' has some similarities to Patty.  I don't think believers should reject what you are saying since the basic principal is true. (and they should not reject it just because you happen to be the one saying it).

 

I have a few other issues of disagreement on some specifics but agree with the general principal.   I will post again anther video to show the basic idea where I think you and I would agree on the concept:

 

 

The kids in the video must lift the heel toward the buttock in order to make sure the foot -- now made longer by the flipper-- can clear the ground.  

 

The clown shoe effect though is mostly observed in extremely long feet. This would not apply to Patty as her feet are under 15 inches. They are not long enough to lead to the extreme shin rise (or heel to buttock) we see on the PGF.  Then there is the Bent Knee, the Knocked-Knee, and so on.  I'll save that for some other time.

 

Backdoc

Edited by chelefoot
Removed quote of preceding post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

kitakaze,

 

Here's more of a look at your BBC recreation, starts around 5:20 mark, note the lack of shin rise in later images, I know, poor quality, but still visible just the same.

 

Pat...

Edited by PBeaton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Bill's opinions about the veracity of the PGF and my claim of seeing a suit are not mutually exclusive. As Bill argued, it is possible another suit existed.

 

 

 

Bill's opinions....or, his "proof", according to him...about the veracity of the PGF and your claim of seeing "the Patty suit" are, absolutely, mutually exclusive. Both cannot be true.

 

 

 

 

I feel certain the suit I saw was used in the PGF based upon the appearance of the suit and who has it, but I have never been able to get the owner to explain why they have that suit and how they obtained it. The plans I had in place to get them to do so were something I was never able to make happen.

 

From the beginning I have always been asked if maybe I was in some way duped by someone wanting me to believe it was the actual suit and me wanting to believe the same. The manner in which the suit is kept, who keeps it, how it looks all make it very clear that this was the suit used in the PGF hoax, but I could not say that it is impossible the suit was a replica being presented as the original.

 

 

"BUT"...."but".......but, so much for kitakaze's "rock solid proof" of a hoax... :lol:

 

 

 

 

So if I was wrong, would that make me dishonest?

 

 

So what was the "Bombshell" you "received" from Bob Heironimus?

 

And, who are the three people you allege have "confessed" that the PGF is a hoax?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And what do you seriously want the BFF to do about it?

 

 

I have discussed it with an Administrator, via PM. :)

Edited by chelefoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Good luck with that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

So what was the "Bombshell" you "received" from Bob Heironimus?

 

And, who are the three people you allege have "confessed" that the PGF is a hoax?

Edited by chelefoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

Are there others who confessed to something involving a hoax?

 

Please tell!

 

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 In my opinion this is just another circular, repetitive discussion. In light of Bill Munn's and Dr. Meldrum's paper, combined with the support that has come out with it, and also very much in light of Sweaty's work, and the supporting qualified opinion we see supporting that in regards to limb proportion, there is zero doubt that Patty is a real creature. People can argue about what she is, and how it relates to Bigfoot all they choose, however, there is no justified argument or dispute that the subject in the film is a real live, living creature. The science behind the validation of the creature is solid, it is proof. Acceptance by "skeptics" is not a requirement of proof. People who read the papers, view Sweaty's work, etc, and still cling to the hoax theory are simply in denial, or unwilling to give up this particular vehicle of argument they have created. 

 

Kit....might I suggest a new course, rather than continue to hurt your claim as a critical thinker by butting heads on something that is now proven, maybe you could do a documentary and blow the lid off the Phoenix lights or something? How about Mothman?  How about that new hole in Russia? (that is a good one)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^

 

Bob Heironimus IS Mothman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 I heard that, someone found a scratch on his mothers car, and he reportedly showed the costume to a bunch of people at a bar somewhere near the Pine Barrens. Also, although not confirmed, I hear there is footage of the mothman riding Bob's pony. He even took a lie detector test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

 In my opinion this is just another circular, repetitive discussion. In light of Bill Munn's and Dr. Meldrum's paper, combined with the support that has come out with it, and also very much in light of Sweaty's work, and the supporting qualified opinion we see supporting that in regards to limb proportion, there is zero doubt that Patty is a real creature. People can argue about what she is, and how it relates to Bigfoot all they choose, however, there is no justified argument or dispute that the subject in the film is a real live, living creature. The science behind the validation of the creature is solid, it is proof. Acceptance by "skeptics" is not a requirement of proof. People who read the papers, view Sweaty's work, etc, and still cling to the hoax theory are simply in denial, or unwilling to give up this particular vehicle of argument they have created. 

 

 

 

Thanks, John... :) The analysis, overall, just continues to build in favor of Patty being a real creature....with nothing other than kitakaze's 'distortion images', to counter it.

 

 

 

 

 

Kit....might I suggest a new course, rather than continue to hurt your claim as a critical thinker by butting heads on something that is now proven, maybe you could do a documentary and blow the lid off the Phoenix lights or something? How about Mothman?  How about that new hole in Russia? (that is a good one)

 

 

It's interesting how kitakaze had been talking about his "great discovery of the Patty suit"....his "recorded confessions"....and his acquisition of a "full, and incriminating, copy of the 2nd Reel".......and now, his efforts have been (slightly) reduced to trying to kill the PGF by beating it over the head with the Independence Day footage... :lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 In my opinion this is just another circular, repetitive discussion. In light of Bill Munn's and Dr. Meldrum's paper, combined with the support that has come out with it, and also very much in light of Sweaty's work, and the supporting qualified opinion we see supporting that in regards to limb proportion, there is zero doubt that Patty is a real creature. 

 

Zero doubt exists in one place and one place only - a tiny subculture of believers that often tries to tell the rest of the world what is proven and what is objective reality versus subjective opinion. They are the Breatharians, the Sylvia Browne believers, the PGF enthusiasts. The marginalization that comes from this form of intransigent insistence is an inevitable outcome when ardent belief faces empirical reality.

 

Qualified opinion is something that always should be met with skepticism, for or against...

 

Bigmeldrum1.jpg

 

Bigsnowwalker.jpg

 

When people take on board things like that, and they decide that a "qualified opinion" is not a reason to believe, this is not "scofticism" or "denialism." It is simply the fact that no matter what a Bigfoot enthusiast, a Breatharian, a Sylvia Browne supporter insists upon you to have been proven true, claiming to cross the finish line where Fortean claims, extraordinary claims, my own claims, are concerned, without actual reliable evidence or proof, they should be dismissed, again, my own included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 The reality is Kit, the film is proven. As I stated, you can debate all you want what it is in the film, but its a living, breathing, walking entity, not a man in a suit. You can attempt to paint it however you like it, and it does not change that reality. The amount of acceptance does not change the reality Kit, its not an opinion poll, or subject to popular vote. You might as well be arguing the moon is made of cheese, or the earth is flat, these arguments carry about as much weight scientifically as your opinions.

 

" The marginalization that comes from this form of intransigent insistence is an inevitable outcome when ardent belief faces empirical reality."

 

 Your right about that, we have seen examples of this through out history as people resist changes to their reality or beliefs. Some people find change threatening for some reason and resist it to the point of manic incoherent behavior. Sometimes they will try and be insulting to those who do not share their beliefs. In extreme cases we see lies, or the false claims of evidence to support their beliefs. In this case we have the film, the story and science. It has been challenged and met with skepticism for decades, yet prevailed. Now technology has caught up with the film, and it has served to prove its authenticity. Your time may be better spent arguing what manner of creature we see in the film, since we now know its real, rather than the dated all ready proven false belief that it is a hoax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
adam2323

^^^^^^John...Well said Well said!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...