roguefooter Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 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. I think you're reading too much into this. SWWA stated that a moose was a bad example because it could be seen out in the open in the daylight, implying that Bigfoot is too smart to put itself in those conditions, and that taking a picture of a Bigfoot is not the same. Patty was photographed out in the open in the daylight, and in no big rush to hide- just like the moose. It doesn't matter why. If Patty put herself in that position to be photographed, then there is no reason why Bigfoots would be too smart for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Well I think you are putting to much into Patty being out in the open. Your first post on the subject made it appear as if Patty was casually strolling along out in the open without a care in the world, when that isn't quite true. And it does matter why she was there and what she was doing at the time of the encounter. It absolutely does. She was there to likely drink on a warm day in the early afternoon and she chose cover by the tree jam. She wasn't drinking by the creek without cover. And she retreated at a decent clip as soon as Patterson and Gimlin encountered her. Patty didn't put 'herself' in any position to be photographed. She didn't head towards Patterson and Gimlin, step out in front of them and wave at them. She was already there in the cover of the tree jam and the noise of the creek probably muffled the sound of their approach. Then she backed off. Any direction she headed would have put her out in the open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) See this is where reading reports comes in. "Patty departures" are described many many times. No they aren't copycatting. That's naive. (People too immersed in this topic, usually for the wrong reasons, think way many more people have watched P/G than actually have.) In fact, Patty Departures are Routine Wildlife Procedure; I've never seen an animal species one at least of which didn't do a Patty Departure. Edited June 17, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted June 17, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted June 17, 2015 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. Cutting and pasting in eyes is one thing and easily done. But you ignore the pixilation issue when you enlarge my avatar picture to the same size as Beerhunters head. That level of pixilation is difficult to deal with using any photo editing software. I doubt very much that it is my avatar picture that has been manipulated. My other question is why are you going after my avatar picture. The source of Beerhunters picture could be anything. Just another way to throw mud at a proponent and me in particular? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Cutting and pasting in eyes is one thing and easily done. But you ignore the pixilation issue when you enlarge my avatar picture to the same size as Beerhunters head. That level of pixilation is difficult to deal with using any photo editing software. I doubt very much that it is my avatar picture that has been manipulated. My other question is why are you going after my avatar picture. The source of Beerhunters picture could be anything. Just another way to throw mud at a proponent and me in particular? I'll say this as succinctly as I can. I made a visual connection between the face in the brush post and the angle of the eye sockets in your avatar. It had nothing specifically to do with you or a particular interest in your avatar. Personally I think a big wooden carving of a grinning bigfoot is if nothing else comical. If nothing else I was protecting your photo and pointing out that perhaps it had been used for a nefarious reason by someone else. I have said nothing against you and nothing has been directed against you. You BTW are the one dragging names into this thing. I simply and dispassionately posted something that struck me as odd. That said your level of paranoia is such that I have to ask myself why? I also have to ask myself why you seem unable to grasp that there was nothing negative hurled against you. What are you afraid of? What are you perhaps hiding? But the core issue is seeking truth is it not? I'm beginning to think that truth is not being sought. A word of advice. when truth vs false is not openly supported or allowed just follow the money. Follow the money and one quickly understands why the protests erupt at certain things. Personally I have no stake in it one way or the other but it seems you do and that's fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted June 17, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted June 17, 2015 Unlike the anonymous you that sits behind your computer I am a real researcher with a real reputation who personally knows and deals with other researchers face to face. You are right that I am afraid of people like you, because you and people like you want to destroy reputations. Anything to further your non existence belief system. You look at each destroyed reputation with glee because it furthers your agenda, rather than sadness that someone succumbed to human weakness and felt the need to hoax or fabricate. Your follow the money ruse is just a thinly veiled attempt to lump me in with money seeking hoaxers and hurt my reputation. You deftly dance around forum rules by using innuendo and false associations. Follow the money is an example of that. If you follow my money it is out of my pocket to fund my research. Something you would not understand. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted June 17, 2015 Moderator Share Posted June 17, 2015 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. Patty actually looks very much like the creatures I saw except for the color. The ones I saw had hair color similar to an Irish setter. In order to understand the PGF the first thing to do is throw out the backstory as it is irrelevant and has nothing at all to do with the subject of the film itself. If you do your homework (and this BTW is where nearly every skeptic I have encountered has fallen on their face right out of the box) the thing to do is to look at the location of the joints and the relative length of the limbs. What you will see is that the arms are too long, and the thigh and shin are different ratios compared to humans. Given that this would have been a flexible suit for a human to be inside, the problem is that its impossible to place the joints in the right place without breaking bones. Also, Patty and the BF I saw share something else- the rather forward and down location of the head relative to the shoulders. The ones I saw had large heads like Patty, but from the rear the head seemed rather small because the shoulders blocked the view of the head somewhat. This does not happen with a human unless they put their head down and that is not what you see with Patty nor is it what I saw. We humans tend to have a rather upright neck. That BTW is one way to spot a fake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Unlike the anonymous you that sits behind your computer I am a real researcher with a real reputation who personally knows and deals with other researchers face to face. You are right that I am afraid of people like you, because you and people like you want to destroy reputations. Anything to further your non existence belief system. You look at each destroyed reputation with glee because it furthers your agenda, rather than sadness that someone succumbed to human weakness and felt the need to hoax or fabricate. Your follow the money ruse is just a thinly veiled attempt to lump me in with money seeking hoaxers and hurt my reputation. You deftly dance around forum rules by using innuendo and false associations. Follow the money is an example of that. If you follow my money it is out of my pocket to fund my research. Something you would not understand. Why do you insist on whipping a dead horse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Just tossing in apropos of nothing that "Irish setter" is a guidebook-consistent breed reference for people describing the hair on what they saw. As to Patty: if I find out tomorrow that P and G fabricated all the story around the film, my reaction will be: So? Bigfoot's real. Look at that. The forward-and-down is a great-ape indicator generally known only to primatologists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) Patty actually looks very much like the creatures I saw except for the color. The ones I saw had hair color similar to an Irish setter. In order to understand the PGF the first thing to do is throw out the backstory as it is irrelevant and has nothing at all to do with the subject of the film itself. If you do your homework (and this BTW is where nearly every skeptic I have encountered has fallen on their face right out of the box) the thing to do is to look at the location of the joints and the relative length of the limbs. What you will see is that the arms are too long, and the thigh and shin are different ratios compared to humans. Given that this would have been a flexible suit for a human to be inside, the problem is that its impossible to place the joints in the right place without breaking bones. Also, Patty and the BF I saw share something else- the rather forward and down location of the head relative to the shoulders. The ones I saw had large heads like Patty, but from the rear the head seemed rather small because the shoulders blocked the view of the head somewhat. This does not happen with a human unless they put their head down and that is not what you see with Patty nor is it what I saw. We humans tend to have a rather upright neck. That BTW is one way to spot a fake. Oh I was pretty up close to the study of the PGF. (The one that only recently concluded with the publishing of a book). I pretty much know the story and back story forwards and backwards. It was the one and only credible piece of evidence ever captured. I still have fascinating information I was given about the PGF that I've never divulged out of my utmost respect to the person that offered it to me. That said better describing Patty than a three toed swamp something or other. It is the variety of descriptions for such a rare beast that began my questioning of sightings and ultimately the case for bigfoot. Edited June 17, 2015 by Crowlogic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Show Your Best Evidence If You Please. (And somebody wake me when that happens.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WesT Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 That's the catch and we all knew it from the gitgo. There is no way to have verifiable evidence of anything that remains unverified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 idn't it great, though, to have a question like that that you can always ask, and know what the answer will be, every single day...until you find out you were wrong all along? At least no work was involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WesT Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 In this instance, the best evidence is self procured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Well I'll go out on a limb and predict that by midnight bigfoot will still be an uncatalogued animal. I'll go out on yet another limb and predict that by noon tomorrow bigfoot will still be uncatalogued. So if nobody brings one in by then the opposing mindset holds the edge. Now if one comes in during the next 21 hours I'll gladly take my lumps. But I'm 99.99999% certain the current status will still stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts