Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Patty Stabilization From Reddit

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti

  But the reason the walk has been studied and talked about in scholarly areas is the simple fact the walk in NOT like you say it is.  Now we can argue as to why that is. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

How many TV shows, writings, and other things have specifically referred to the 'odd' or '*****' or 'not human-not ape' walk?

 

This may be your opinion. That is fine.  But the reason the walk has been studied and talked about in scholarly areas is the simple fact the walk in NOT like you say it is.  Now we can argue as to why that is.  The walk itself is practically famous for being not like that of a person regardless of why.

 

Backdoc

The walk is compliant. It's not inhuman in any way. It's as much a product of the suit as the actor. You can say it is inhuman but the only ones who will listen will be fellow Patty believers. The stabilized footage shows Patty in a very mundane fashion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

^

 

How about a direct, unambiguous 'yes' or 'no' answer to my question...."Is it reasonable to think that Bigfoot may exist within the PNW only??"  

The gobbeldygook words you wrote after your 'yes' do not speak directly to my question. 

 

 

You said "don't talk to me about only the PNW"....and yet, you said the PNW is the "only reasonable place" where they may exist.

 

Which is it....should we talk about "only the PNW", regarding Bigfoot's existence being probable....or shouldn't we??   :popcorn:

One may feel free to discuss Bigfoot only existing in the PNW as long as you don't pretend Bigfoot isn't mostly reported outside of it. Actually, you can discuss it however you like, though I'd like to know the criteria by which someone dismisses Bigfoot reports based on location.

I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to think Bigfoot exists like the kermode bear but on a much smaller scale. However, the evidence is far more consistent with a social construct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

The walk is compliant. It's not inhuman in any way. It's as much a product of the suit as the actor. You can say it is inhuman but the only ones who will listen will be fellow Patty believers. The stabilized footage shows Patty in a very mundane fashion.

 

So the Stanford people like to study 'normal' walks to see if a man in a suit can replicate a 'normal' walk and make a TV show about it?  That is a new one on me, even for you. 

Look, the Stanford people took up the study BECAUSE the walk was unusual. 

Why can't you just say, "look man, the walk is unusual like these biomechanical experts say, I just think that unusual walk is a man in a suit."

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

One may feel free to discuss Bigfoot only existing in the PNW as long as you don't pretend Bigfoot isn't mostly reported outside of it. Actually, you can discuss it however you like, though I'd like to know the criteria by which someone dismisses Bigfoot reports based on location.

 

 

You still haven't eliminated your contradiction. :)

 

Here are your original statements:

 

 

What is the precedent for a massive land mammal living across major industrialized nations with a viable breeding population and no reliable evidence, unambiguous photos or videos, or type specimen. It is ludicrous and insane. Will you please try and honestly confront this problem? Don't talk to me about remote wilderness. That's not the way Bigfoot is reported. Don't talk to me about only the PNW. Over 2/3 of reports come from outside it.

 

 

And:

 

 

I would think it is reasonable, and this is really pushing it, four American states - Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California and two Canadian provinces - British Columbia and Alberta. That is where I think if the 1% were to be a reality, would be the only reasonable places. 

 

 

I still don't understand what you are proposing, as far as where Bigfoot's existence would be a "reasonable probability"...(and not "ludicrous and insane".)

 

You said "don't talk to me about only the PNW"....and yet, you said the PNW is the "only reasonable place" where they may exist.

 

 

Which is it....should we talk about "only the PNW" as being where Bigfoot's existence is a "reasonable probability"....or shouldn't we??    

 

By your estimation....is there a "reasonable probability" that Bigfoot exists outside of the PNW? 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

When I said don't talk to me about the PNW/remote wilderness, it was in the context of how Bigfoot is reported. IOW, don't pretend Bigfoot is only reported in the PNW.

Where I think Bigfoot could reasonably exist without being detected is non sequitur to my acknowledging the nature of how Bigfoot is reported - all across North America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

When I said don't talk to me about the PNW/remote wilderness, it was in the context of how Bigfoot is reported. IOW, don't pretend Bigfoot is only reported in the PNW.

 

 

The Hell it was. It was in the context of Bigfoot's existence being...(according to you)...

 

 "It is ludicrous and insane. Will you please try and honestly confront this problem? Don't talk to me about remote wilderness. That's not the way Bigfoot is reported. Don't talk to me about only the PNW. Over 2/3 of reports come from outside it."

 

 

Again....in the context of Bigfoot's existence being a "reasonable probability".....(vs. "ludicrous and insane")...

 

You said "don't talk to me about only the PNW"....and yet, you said the PNW is the "only reasonable place" where they may exist.

 

 

Which is it....should we talk about "only the PNW" as being where Bigfoot's existence is a "reasonable probability"....or shouldn't we??    

 

By your estimation....is there a "reasonable probability" that Bigfoot exists outside of the PNW? 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

It's the quote-mining thing you won't stop doing...

"What is the precedent for a massive land mammal living across major industrialized nations with a viable breeding population and no reliable evidence, unambiguous photos or videos, or type specimen. It is ludicrous and insane. Will you please try and honestly confront this problem? Don't talk to me about remote wilderness. That's not the way Bigfoot is reported. Don't talk to me about only the PNW. Over 2/3 of reports come from outside it. Don't talk to me about eastern cougars. I linked videos of Florida panthers."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137614

- Ludicrous and insane refers to the notion Bigfoot lives across North America with no reliable evidence.

- Don't talk to me about only PNW is in reference to the way Bigfoot is actually reported - mostly outside of it. I also said don't talk about eastern cougars. Because there's a point - the fact that it's non sequitur to how Bigfoot is actually reported.

 

By your estimation....is there a "reasonable probability" that Bigfoot exists outside of the PNW?

In North America or anywhere? Like can Russia and China count? Whitehall, NY, Indiana, Massachussetts... no, no reasonable probability. That would be different for another person if you swore you saw one, but you could very well be wrong. Jerry Merritt thought his driveway Bigfoot could not have been faked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

In North America or anywhere? Like can Russia and China count? Whitehall, NY, Indiana, Massachussetts... no, no reasonable probability. 

 

 

O.k., so you say that there "is a reasonable probability" that Bigfoot exists within the PNW...and "no reasonable probability" of them existing outside of the PNW....(in N.A.).  You are "talking to us about ONLY the PNW", as having a reasonable probability.   :)

 

But yet, you have said...(regarding "reasonable probability)....."do not talk to me about only the PNW."

 

Why are you going against your own dictate??? You are contradicting yourself. :)

 

 

Make up your mind, kit...and answer me this...

 

Should we talk about "only the PNW" as being where Bigfoot's existence has a "reasonable probability"....or shouldn't we??? 

 

 

To elaborate on your "thinking" a little further.....when you said, on JREF, "not to talk to you about only the PNW"....you meant that other sighting reports from outside the PNW cannot be separated from those within the PNW.....(it is a 'package deal'....if it is "reasonable" within, then it must be "reasonable" without the PNW..."Over 2/3 of reports come from outside it." Conversely, If it is not reasonable outside of the PNW, then it cannot be reasonable within just the PNW.)

 

So, how can you now separate them....and rate the probability as "reasonable within the PNW"...and "unreasonable/insane/ludicrous" outside of the PNW"??? 

 

You seem very confused, kit.  

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

 

This may be your opinion. That is fine. 

 

 Kitakaze is just a layman who doesn't really know much about this.

 

This guy, however, knew exactly what he was talking about as he was a qualified expert in such matters as human locomotion.

 

http://www.bigfootresearch.com/index.php?name=News&file=print&sid=164

 

He wasn't a 'bigfooter' either.

Edited by Neanderfoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Regarding kitakaze's characterization of Bigfoot existing outside of the PNW as being "absurd/ludicrous/insane'....here is a map of the range that some bipedal Primates can cover....when going for long walks...

 

Appalachian%20Trail%20large1_zpslx13juap

 

 

 

If humans can cover thousands of miles, going for a stroll through the mountains....then so can Sasquatches. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

^^^

 

Once again, real world examples which should serve as teaching us principles and reason are lost on some.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

If humans can cover thousands of miles, going for a stroll through the mountains....then so can Sasquatches. :)

That mental disconnect where you fail the distinction of humans being a known species. If humans can go for a stroll through Rt. 203 and State Farm Road in Kinderhook... then so can Sasquatches...

 

YEAR: 1983

SEASON: Spring

MONTH: May

DATE: Friday

STATE: New York

COUNTY: Columbia County

LOCATION DETAILS: County Rt. 203 is off State Rt. 9W, south

NEAREST TOWN: Kinderhook, NY

NEAREST ROAD: County Rt. 203

OBSERVED:

May 1983, Kinderhook, NY (Columbia County) 5:30 - 6:00 pm.

At the corner of Rt. 203 and State Farm Rd.

My daughter and I were making a right hand turn at the cow pasture of Rt 203 and State Farm Rd. in Valatie when we saw a large (7 feet at least), hairy man-like creature. He was getting up from what appeared to be from a crouching position to a standing position. I stopped the car suddenly. It glanced our way and then took off in the oppositite direction through the cow pasture. The entire incident took less than 5 minutes.

The creature's hair color was light brown. The hair covered his face except for his eyes and mouth.

Welcome to Bigfootery.

Kitakaze is just a layman who doesn't really know much about this.

 

This guy, however, knew exactly what he was talking about as he was a qualified expert in such matters as human locomotion.

 

http://www.bigfootresearch.com/index.php?name=News&file=print&sid=164

 

He wasn't a 'bigfooter' either.

Not only non-layman, they literally wrote the book on gait analysis...

http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/30761-best-evidence-bigfoot-gait-analysis-video.htm

1337457-L.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

That mental disconnect where you fail the distinction of humans being a known species. 

 

 

2100 miles. :) A human can live in Maine....and exist in Georgia, by simply walking. Similarly, the same thing could happen with Sasquatches.

 

To declare that Bigfoot existing, and living, within the PNW is "reasonable"....and yet declare that it simply existing in/passing through other States is "absurd/ludicrous/insane".....is as good an example of a 'mental disconnect' as I have ever seen. 

 

 

And, how about them contradictions?! Care to try straightening-out your "ONLY the PNW" mess?? :popcorn:

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

I don't have a problem if someone thinks Bigfoot is real in a fashion similar to but far less than the kermode bear, as long as they don't pretend Bigfoot isn't mostly reported outside of such a range and that the same lack of reliable evidence applies equally to all of them.

Bigfoots whether living or passing through places like Rt. 203 and State Farm Road in Kinderhook, NY without reliable evidence is the height of absurdity.

Bigfoot being an uncatalogued species that migrates through such areas is not helping your case.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...