norseman Posted July 24, 2014 Admin Share Posted July 24, 2014 Well Iam trying..... I was wrong, http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/patterson.php 14.5 L 6 W 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 [holds head] no. Please. We KNOW what suitbuilding talent existed in the sixties and who had it and what they used. Once again: there is the vanishing possibility of a preternatural genius...and then there is the way to bet, which is: that's an animal, and it ain't an animal in any suit but its birthday suit. There are way more than enough reports. WAY more than enough. I am hoping that people do more thinking about this before they come here, but apparently not. Once AGAIN: people with directly relevant scientific chops say you are wrong. Them over you, and done. Oh make me laugh some more DWA. Patterson was not likely preternatural anything. He lucked into a film (genuine or faked in such a way he wouldn't even be able to reproduce it if needed) and made the most of it. Many would do so in his place. Serendipitous events are not easily reproduced even hoaxed events can be difficult to reproduce. The number of times I've accidentally erased a really cool and slick piece of commentary here and couldn't reproduce it is a good example of the difficulty in reproducing something. Just words man can be hard to reproduce. Imagine how hard it could be to reproduce the way the hair falls in the light as your friend insouciantly saunters across an open space. I've seen people quibble over something this minor on these pages here. Stuff that DOES NOT matter. Just because something is not reproducible does not mean it is legitimate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Yes they do, it's an absolute fact, that the trackway and film site where at the same location. Otherwise explain to me how Green found it and filmed Mcclarin on the same path? http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/1887-parnassus-comparison-mclarinpatty-pics/page-2 My point was ? That hoaxed track ways never film the hoaxer perpetrating the act. The PGF does......it's unique. Finally I am not asking you to believe in anything....other than biological proof. I am a firm believer in a type specimen solving this mystery, and not plaster casts or grainy photos. But I am saying that if the PGF is a hoax? It's a **** good one. Then where is it? If it's out there? This film will not prove it's existence. We have to go get it..... Same location does not mean one made the other. If Patterson had taken the camera and continued filming as he went over to Patty's footprints then we would have proof that they were made by Patty. He did not do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 (edited) You know, antfoot, all this reference to laughter and you should be reading. "Lucked into a film"????????????????????????????????? Meldrum. Bindernagel. Krantz. Tell me how they're wrong or we have run out of things to talk about. They say the film's a bigfoot. They're right. You know that if you started on this the way you are thinking now you would be unable to progress unless a bigfoot walked in your door and gave itself up, right? Actually it would probably kill you when you started trying to cut the suit off, so, um, whoops, never mind... Edited July 24, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Nothing but proof will prove anything. But the body of evidence says: anyone following it, and staying out there as long as it takes, will get it. well certainly not yet : ) Proof proving anything is not compelling argument. using a defining term to define how the term will be used is kind of silly isn't it? tautology mean anything to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 (edited) Nobody's been out there nearly long enough. How do we know? Jane Goodall. NAWAC's total time in field hasn't passed her first tour yet. At least they're seeing animals. Jane had barely even done that yet so in that sense NAWAC may be ahead of her. Humor mean anything to you? You may need to take a rest from this revolving door. Your field research program would take ten years to get to the truck. Edited July 24, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 You know, antfoot, all this reference to laughter and you should be reading. "Lucked into a film"????????????????????????????????? Meldrum. Bindernagel. Krantz. Tell me how they're wrong or we have run out of things to talk about. They say the film's a bigfoot. They're right. You know that if you started on this the way you are thinking now you would be unable to progress unless a bigfoot walked in your door and gave itself up, right? Actually it would probably kill you when you started trying to cut the suit off, so, um, whoops, never mind... Considering I still think bigfoot is possible says more about my stance than anything you've come up with. DNA will shut me up if that's what you think. Actually it wouldn't, I'd start telling all my friends "I told you so" but it would solve the problem just fine and I would not feel the least bit foolish about it. Meldrum. Krantz and Bindernagl? They are not right. Not yet anyway. From my reading, all three contradict each other in many points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 DNA? No body, just a contaminated DNA sample? Then Ketchum's gotcha already doesn't she. Um, no they don't contradict each other...and as to the current state of the evidence, they are right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Nobody's been out there nearly long enough. How do we know? Jane Goodall. NAWAC's total time in field hasn't passed her first tour yet. At least they're seeing animals. Jane had barely even done that yet so in that sense NAWAC may be ahead of her. Humor mean anything to you? You may need to take a rest from this revolving door. Your field research program would take ten years to get to the truck. Humans have been in the American woodlands for a couple of hundred years with no bodies. Doesn't mean bigfoot doesn't exist but means that there is no evidence yet. DNA? No body, just a contaminated DNA sample? Then Ketchum's gotcha already doesn't she. Um, no they don't contradict each other...and as to the current state of the evidence, they are right. Ketchum's material was identified as bearman. some with just enough possum and/or raccoon DNA plus some angel DNA. Really, you're going to bring her into this? DNA when sequenced is reliable enough to convict criminals for rape and murder. Why would itbe insufficient for diagnosing angel er I mean bigfoot DNA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted July 24, 2014 Admin Share Posted July 24, 2014 (edited) Same location does not mean one made the other. If Patterson had taken the camera and continued filming as he went over to Patty's footprints then we would have proof that they were made by Patty. He did not do this.But follow on researchers would have found two track ways. Ape suit trackway and stomper trackway.Tracks don't lie, you can make some one think your something your not? But you cannot levitate across the ground. Edited July 24, 2014 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Footprints aren't made every time someone walks across a field. It is very likely that whoever may have been inside a suit on that day may have left none at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Do you have a better stance from which to pronounce judgments? Yes I do. It's known as experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Well Iam trying..... I was wrong, http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/patterson.php 14.5 L 6 W Here is Sweaty Yeti agreeing with me about Patty's height compared to McLaren http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/48328-pattersongimlin-vs-independence-day-footage-a-closer-look/page-3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Well before this gets dragged into a PGF debate let's focus on the premise that secrecy in Bigfoot research is designed to hide the fact that the researcher/evidence keeper actually does not have said evidence. Since a half century on from the PGF we're still holding our breath the premise I state leans far more towards being the reality of the situation than any other alternatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 ^^^ ..."Jane Goodall. NAWAC's total time in field hasn't passed her first tour yet. At least they're seeing animals."... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts