roguefooter Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 Not quite the whole picture roguefooter You have taken the PGF out of context, which is surprising given your support of it. In fact Patty was first encountered by the cover of a tree jam. A considerably large one. She was crouching by the creek and probably had been drinking as it was midday and warm. Patterson and Gimlin didn't see her until they rounded this tree jam because she was in cover. Patty then walked away at a decent clip and when Patterson got closer she strode out more and disappeared into the distance. She had nowhere to go but across the sandbar. Patty was not casually strolling out in the open when encountered. Wanting nothing to do with humans and beating a retreat contradicts what exactly? I don't hear too many reports of bigfoot fleeing like a spooked deer on sight of humans. Read what SWWA posted, this is what I'm referring to- "Notice the picture that Crow produces to show what good photographic evidence would be is the Moose. They are one of the dumber forest animals, are not smart enough to hide, or be active nocturnally like a deer. When they are around, you often see them in the open in broad daytlight. Taking a picture of a moose is a whole lot different that something that is near human intelligence, hides behind trees even at night, and seems to have some understanding of what cameras are or at least seems to avoid them." Think about the PGF encounter and compare that to the average moose or deer encounter- which is more stealthy? Which evades at a faster pace? SWWA is claiming Bigfoot is near human intelligence and far stealthier than the above examples. Bigfoot has been sighted out in the open, active during the day. Most night encounters seem to be out in the open as well going across a road, walking through an open area, camping spot, or through the woods. Patty was behind a rootball but still out in the open on a sandbar. She was also active during the day, not nocturnally. Once seen she went across the sandbar out in the open- it wasn't her only option. She could have went right for the trees that we see behind her, the nearest cover, right up the hill out of view like any deer would have done. Instead she took the unstealthy route- like a moose.
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 Life is to short to wait for bigfoot to materialize and you can take that to the bank. So then what's the point of starting this thread and asking people for evidence?
ThePhaige Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 Thats a poor comparison... it has been theorised also that she may have been drawing the subjects away from others , perhaps young SSq in the area. That is an assumption on your part that this was an unintelligent manuever...perhaps she was leading them into an potential ambush. No real way to know for sure. Along with the times they are seen in the open they are much more adept than a moose at remaining hidden, simply bases on the amount of moose that are seen and photgraphed. I think its more plausible that a mistake was made and she was caught in the open by an oversight, remaining calm she evacuated the area. Who knows what was beyond sight. Gimlin and Patterson both felt there were others in the area. That is also unscientific, but they were there and we were not.
roguefooter Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 (edited) Crow and Rogue, I posted a news story here http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/51488-most-compelling-encounter-reports-to-you-personally/ Pictures, videos and a body would be grand, but as folks work on BF from other angles, believers, fence sitters, denialists and everyone in between can see that people are using a scientific approach to the subject with the evidence that is out there. Of course it is up to each individual to make up ones own mind,. however, the subject of BF has both of you so enthralled that perhaps in your minds you want it to be true, Is this even slightly true? Understand that even though me and Crow tend to argue the same points, we are not on the same standing as far as the existence of Bigfoot goes. I'm still a fence sitter, I'm optimistic of existence to a point, but I'm also a realist. It could be real or just a myth- either way it's interesting and a good time. I think people get too emotionally involved and personal about the whole thing. Thats a poor comparison... it has been theorised also that she may have been drawing the subjects away from others , perhaps young SSq in the area. That is an assumption on your part that this was an unintelligent manuever...perhaps she was leading them into an potential ambush. No real way to know for sure. Along with the times they are seen in the open they are much more adept than a moose at remaining hidden, simply bases on the amount of moose that are seen and photgraphed. I think its more plausible that a mistake was made and she was caught in the open by an oversight, remaining calm she evacuated the area. Who knows what was beyond sight. Gimlin and Patterson both felt there were others in the area. That is also unscientific, but they were there and we were not. ^It's not a poor comparison, it's what's actually seen in the evidence. She had more than one option- the trees or the sandbar. She was also out and about in broad daylight and not a stealthy nocturnal like SWWA is claiming of Bigfoots. Edited June 15, 2015 by roguefooter
beerhunter Posted June 15, 2015 Posted June 15, 2015 It all seems like a silly game for folks to come here so anti-subject. If we went to the international skeptic form and talked about BF they would start with the name calling. I believe DWA is a big subject of their spite - just from the few minutes I actually spent there reading. The last thing skeptics want is for footers to agree with them because the forum would be boring and they couldn't play their little child games.
roguefooter Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 The juvenile behind the bushes looked familiar so I made up this transition. I think its made from the standing statue of a members avatar. You decide. That's pretty spot on. Shading around the eyes matches up, nose, etc. It did look familiar but I just couldn't place it either.
roguefooter Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 Is this good enough for the old Crow? Beerhunter, where did this photo come from? Is it yours? Do you have the uncropped version of it?
Guest DWA Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 So then what's the point of starting this thread and asking people for evidence? Crowlogic is and could not more obviously be a Former Believer Who Wants To Believe Again. I am not the whistlestop for that type. Belief means nothing in science. It is whether evidence backs your belief. Crow never understood that the evidence backed him, so he went 180 degrees to where the evidence doesn't. Odd if you just ask me.
Squatchy McSquatch Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 So far the best evidence presented in this thread is a wood carving. Got it. Lesson learned. Quite compelling.
ThePhaige Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 I think most people with some semblance of sense see this thread as nothing more than a trap and generally are just taking a glance in that pit and walking around it... The evidence is vast and all around ad nauseam its ok to disagree.
Guest Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) Read what SWWA posted, this is what I'm referring to- "Notice the picture that Crow produces to show what good photographic evidence would be is the Moose. They are one of the dumber forest animals, are not smart enough to hide, or be active nocturnally like a deer. When they are around, you often see them in the open in broad daytlight. Taking a picture of a moose is a whole lot different that something that is near human intelligence, hides behind trees even at night, and seems to have some understanding of what cameras are or at least seems to avoid them." Think about the PGF encounter and compare that to the average moose or deer encounter- which is more stealthy? Which evades at a faster pace? SWWA is claiming Bigfoot is near human intelligence and far stealthier than the above examples. Bigfoot has been sighted out in the open, active during the day. Most night encounters seem to be out in the open as well going across a road, walking through an open area, camping spot, or through the woods. Patty was behind a rootball but still out in the open on a sandbar. She was also active during the day, not nocturnally. Once seen she went across the sandbar out in the open- it wasn't her only option. She could have went right for the trees that we see behind her, the nearest cover, right up the hill out of view like any deer would have done. Instead she took the unstealthy route- like a moose. Well he didn't say anything about being spooked or frightened like a deer. I can't read anything about him saying bigfoot takes off like a rocket when seen. I haven't read many reports of bigfoot fleeing in panic. Just wanting nothing to do with humans and retreating...which is exactly what Patty did. She backed off and walked away. And the important reason why Patty was there was likely the creek. She probably needed a drink. All creatures need sustenance, however evasive. It was just after midday and by all accounts warm. The brush cover by the creek had been washed away by a flood a few years before leaving that area by the creek exposed and 'open'. Patty likely needed to quench her thirst but she still chose the one spot along that exposed creek area there where there was some cover of the tree jam and that's where she was when Roger and Bob came along. She actually was in cover. The trees in the background were still across the sandbar and a ways away so whatever option she chose she would still have needed to come out into the open across the sandbar/exposed open area. We can see the edge of this tree jam by the creek (where Patty was) during the first few frames of the PGF and the forest in the background still looks a way off behind it. She chose the exact opposite direction Roger and Bob came from. Almost a 180 from their direction. Patty might even have seen Roger and Bob during their days riding up and down the creek and feeder creeks and deemed them not life threatening, but just something to be avoided. Yes bigfoot might be mostly active nocturnally but that doesn't mean they aren't also active in the day as well. Deers are. I don't think he was implying they are only active at night. If he was then he is mistaken, as the reports would tend to show otherwise. Cheers. Edited June 16, 2015 by Neanderfoot
Guest DWA Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 I think most people with some semblance of sense see this thread as nothing more than a trap and generally are just taking a glance in that pit and walking around it... The evidence is vast and all around ad nauseam its ok to disagree. Well, I am not gonna argue that wanting to argue implies "some semblance of sense." Some of us just get off our bash urge here. Urge gotten off. I'm always telling people that your opinion doesn't matter and mine doesn't either. The opinion of science does, however, and we already have that opinion. As always at the frontiers of science, most scientists just don't know that yet.
SWWASAS Posted June 16, 2015 BFF Patron Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) I seem to be dragged kicking and complaining into this thread by the use of my avatar by Crow. Lets address that. I will let others make the comparison using the techniques Crow is implying Beerhunter used. Copy the picture of my aviator from my profile page. Blow up the head of my carving to the size of the head in the picture that Bee hunter posted. On my computer that head is about 2 inches high. Note that my avatar picture requires a low pixel count or resolution to even post. So when the face of my avatar is 2 inches high it is heavily pixelated with very noticeable square pixel patches. Also look at the eyes and compare the two pictures. The Beerhunter picture shows yellow iris and a dark large pupil. The avatar eyes are very different. At that level of enlargement nothing other that pixel by pixel replacement of my avatar picture can reproduce the picture Beerhunter posted that does not show that square pixilation. Crow is likely very aware of that if my avatar profile picture was enlarged at all it would have shown that pixilation. So Crow not enlarging the picture to match the size of Beerhunters head seems to be a deliberate attempt to mislead. Something skeptics always accuse proponents of doing. Nothing hides or avoids being out in the open when it does not think any threat, including humans are around. My last field work I came up on a deer well out in the open in a clear cut. It never knew I was there. I watched it for a while and it just walked away totally unaware I was even there. Why would BF be any different? Edited June 16, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT
salubrious Posted June 16, 2015 Moderator Posted June 16, 2015 Has anyone ever worked out the odds for Patterson's success? They are long odds. A rented camera, broad daylight, following a tip from Ray Wallace, ending with a film longer than virtually anything since. The science of mathematics isn't going to be kind to it but real science is never kind to bigfootism. Part of why he was able to do it was luck (Patty was in the area), and part was the fact that he was on a horse with a camera. The difference between bipedal and quadrupedal footfalls is pretty significant. So Patty likely did not think that humans were approaching. The juvenile behind the bushes looked familiar so I made up this transition. I think its made from the standing statue of a members avatar. You decide. Just look at the eyes. In the photo put up, the pupils look different sizes. Not so with the woodcarving. Not a match. Next.
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 16, 2015 Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) Part of why he was able to do it was luck (Patty was in the area), and part was the fact that he was on a horse with a camera. The difference between bipedal and quadrupedal footfalls is pretty significant. So Patty likely did not think that humans were approaching. Just look at the eyes. In the photo put up, the pupils look different sizes. Not so with the woodcarving. Not a match. Next. I considered the eyes too. However photo manipulation allows for cutting an pasting details as desired. Obviously the carved eyes wouldn't do well. But the carved face with some decent eyes not half bad. There are things that scale a bit too well together. I invite anyone to have a crack at comparing the photos as I did. So you've added the factor of luck and horses. What does that do to the odds what kind of percentage does it add ? People have come upon bigfoot in all kinds of ways and they've specifically tried horses as well. Cliff Crook has used horses and he's as empty handed as the rest. Also consider has anyone ever said Patty is a dead ringer for what they claim to see? With all the variations out there there must be a host of different sub species going on which makes it even more unbelievable. BTW why would Ray Wallace send Roger on anything other than a fool's errand. Old Ray was in the market for a few laughs. The PGF is an intriguing film but everything else connected with it is a mess right down to the person that sent Roger to Bluff Creek in the first place. Edited June 16, 2015 by Crowlogic
Recommended Posts