Squatchy McSquatch Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 I've got his book and Munns writes not for Bigfoot. He focuses on generational copies and whatever's on the film. Obtusive indeed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 (edited) 1. Speculation on my part... Whether RP was on the horse or not, there are in-fact two Sasquatch subjects in the PG film. 2. Regardless of the location, RP and BG discovered multiple tracks... Hoaxed footprints do not disprove the existence of Sasquatch. 3. The anatomy of these animals do not match that of any human being. I've seen the video of Bob Heironimus imitating Patty's walk... Comical! Even if I wanted to believed BH, the lack of matching anatomy between BH and "Patty" renders his claim invalid. My breakthrough research cannot be disputed. There are two subjects viewable in the PG film. It may not disprove a hoax, but when one considers the history and archive of reported sightings and encounters, it doesn't take a genius to come to a logical conclusion. To be continued... 1. Seriously, when you start throwing the word "fact" around based on speculation, it doesn't do much for your argument. 2. The "multiple tracks" that P&G found were the leftover footprints from the Blue Creek Mountain episode. Hoaxed footprints means the story doesn't support any claim of multiple Bigfoots in the area. Nobody said that they "disprove the existence of sasquatch". 3. Your "breakthrough research" is based on flawed logic that the camera was never stopped. Munns examination of the film frame by frame shows the camera stopped multiple times. Edited September 20, 2015 by roguefooter 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trogluddite Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 67 Mopar, just a suggestion. There are worlds of Patterson-Gimlin film threads for you to explore without even becoming a premium member (although that would be good to). Your research and explanations would be a better fit there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 Just a question for those who have actually had a clear sighting of a bigfoot: Do any of you doubt the authenticity of the Patterson-Gimlin film? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 (edited) ^^^Good question. I have read a number of reports that say "no, that film is not what it looked like; it looked like this..." and they then describe an animal looking no different from the P/G subject than any two people selected at random differ from one another. I've never read a report by a witness who had seen the film and described something in no way similar. One notable example was the guy who shot one in Manitoba in 1941. When he saw stills from P/G, he knew immediately that he'd killed one of them. But he described significant differences, including hair. He opined that that one would probably freeze up in Manitoba. Edited September 20, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted September 20, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted September 20, 2015 (edited) JDL I will really throw a curve at you on my answer and probably complicate things. I think that the arguments for the authenticity of the P/G film and talking to Bob about his experience outweigh the arguments against authenticity of the film. That said I do not think the juvenile I took a picture of is the same species as Patty. One could argue that means Patty was not real but then you would have to accept that the real BF looks different. My juvenile could not have been more than 3.5 feet tall and a human child could not have fitted into a costume with its slender arms. There are too many physiological differences for that juvenile to grow up into a Patty type. My picture shows a more prominent Sagital crest, prominant ears fairly high on the head, and a more ape looking face and nose than Patty. I cannot morph what I saw into a Patty from what I have observed in the differences between juveniles of any species including humans and adults of that species. Ears do not move around on heads, and head shapes change significantly going from juvenile to adult on mammals. If Patty is a real creature then there are at least two different species out there in the woods. I suppose that the juvenile could have been some sort of throwback or had some genetic deformity. I did not see the two adults that I heard with the juvenile so cannot make a direct comparison. The several adult footprints I have found in the area have been classical wide and large BF footprints. But I cannot say they are the same species either. Edited September 20, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfriendly Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 They exist. You really want a knockdown drag out you need a contender with WOOO written on both gloves : ) . Shadowborn , you did'nt mention on what caused the said "split" . I will not create a macro so you will have to come here and reread this line :0 Everyone of the reports cannot be fake,hoax, misidentification. currently there are 4836 reports on the BFRO and that does not include the ones they keep private. I have read a lot of them and there are more than several that are from what anyone should call reputable people, people that reporting a Sasquatch sighting could possibly have repercussions on their life. Law enforcement officers, wildlife personnell, doctors phsycologists etc. The number above is not all the reports, I know of a half dozen just around me that have never been reported and I am sure I am not alone in that on this forum. There are some of the above as, we all know, hoaxes, mis id's, But for arguments sake sake ( I do not believe no where near this figure) That 99% are fake / mis id's that means just from the "known" BFRO reports that there are at least 48 Sasquatches running around out there. How can anyone look at the number of people that have came face to face with what that person knows was not a human and tell them that they are mistaken or lying. The math adds up in favor of Sasquatch all day long. Exactly....read sig line. It only takes one of the thousands to be real, for the big fella(gals) to be real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 (edited) ^^^I know that this is a logical argument but it's not the one I prefer. Of the ones I have read, here are the possibilities: major drug experience; major mental malfunction; major big fat lie...or what the witness says they saw. A lifetime spent around animals and humans and wilderness tells me that not even a significant percentage of the reports are the first three things. Edited September 20, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 (Never mind a whole lot more thinking about how all this stuff goes together than one will get from all bigfoot skeptics combined.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 Just a question for those who have actually had a clear sighting of a bigfoot: Do any of you doubt the authenticity of the Patterson-Gimlin film? Can't claim a clear sighting for myself, but I can say without reservation that Bob G is very genuine and honest about everything--IF Patty was in any way fake or unreal, he too was hoaxed and the "actor" was well enough suited to fool his 30 y/o eyes at a distance of 25 or so feet. No grainy B/W shaky film, just straight eyesight observation. ^^^Good question. I have read a number of reports that say "no, that film is not what it looked like; it looked like this..." and they then describe an animal looking no different from the P/G subject than any two people selected at random differ from one another. I've never read a report by a witness who had seen the film and described something in no way similar. One notable example was the guy who shot one in Manitoba in 1941. When he saw stills from P/G, he knew immediately that he'd killed one of them. But he described significant differences, including hair. He opined that that one would probably freeze up in Manitoba. My personal opinion--they are hybrid humans, so variations are limitless as far as individual characteristics go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 67Mopar Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 My personal opinion--they are hybrid humans, so variations are limitless as far as individual characteristics go. Absolutely! But then, what are we hybrids of? If we say that Sasquatch is part human, part unknown, the "unknown" must be something more beastly than Sasquatch. Two of my fiance's cousins (Bruce and Sally) had multiple encounters (which included a 5 minute stare-down through Bruce's bedroom window) in Virginia circa 1965. My fiance use to giggle at my interest in Sasquatch. That was until she visited her cousin in San Diego... After telling her the tale of his and Sally's multiple encounter, she became a convert. I had pretty-much given up on the topic, but the internet of-course breathed new life into it. It too a while to get Bruce do an interview, and I have to say it is a frightful to say the least! My cousin Robert said to me; "I was giving up on it... Since hearing that interview, I'm in for life!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 If Gimlin was ever within 25 feet of Patty it was only to help Suit Up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 Got proof? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 67Mopar Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 1. Speculation on my part... Whether RP was on the horse or not, there are in-fact two Sasquatch subjects in the PG film. 2. Regardless of the location, RP and BG discovered multiple tracks... Hoaxed footprints do not disprove the existence of Sasquatch. 3. The anatomy of these animals do not match that of any human being. I've seen the video of Bob Heironimus imitating Patty's walk... Comical! Even if I wanted to believed BH, the lack of matching anatomy between BH and "Patty" renders his claim invalid. My breakthrough research cannot be disputed. There are two subjects viewable in the PG film. It may not disprove a hoax, but when one considers the history and archive of reported sightings and encounters, it doesn't take a genius to come to a logical conclusion. To be continued... 1. Seriously, when you start throwing the word "fact" around based on speculation, it doesn't do much for your argument. 2. The "multiple tracks" that P&G found were the leftover footprints from the Blue Creek Mountain episode. Hoaxed footprints means the story doesn't support any claim of multiple Bigfoots in the area. Nobody said that they "disprove the existence of sasquatch". 3. Your "breakthrough research" is based on flawed logic that the camera was never stopped. Munns examination of the film frame by frame shows the camera stopped multiple times. Ah yes, Bill Munn's speculative analysis on what RP's activities. I'm sure Bill is a nice guy, and I do agree with some of his research. His assertion that RP was "turning the camera on and off" while the subject was in sight is patently ridiculous! I don't need to speculate, as the 0:57 long piece of footage speaks for itself. RP may have edited pre and post footage, but there are no pauses or edits from time markers 0:00 to 0:57 ending. None at all! Since the subjects (that's right) are in constant motion, edits and pauses would be self-evident. Let's say for entertainment sake, that RP stopped the camera at time marker 0:18, and then resumed filming... How does, and why would the same subject "PattY" move back away from the wood line, and then move closer to RP, only to resume moving back away from him? It wouldn't, and it didn't! Subject #1 "Bobby" exited the area to the safety of the wood line... "Patty" followed a NE course roughly 30 to 40 yard south of the wood line. Who would stop the camera while filming a Sasquatch? Survey says... No one, that's who! RP did not stop filming, nor would he have considered it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 My personal opinion--they are hybrid humans, so variations are limitless as far as individual characteristics go. Absolutely! But then, what are we hybrids of? If we say that Sasquatch is part human, part unknown, the "unknown" must be something more beastly than Sasquatch. Two of my fiance's cousins (Bruce and Sally) had multiple encounters (which included a 5 minute stare-down through Bruce's bedroom window) in Virginia circa 1965. My fiance use to giggle at my interest in Sasquatch. That was until she visited her cousin in San Diego... After telling her the tale of his and Sally's multiple encounter, she became a convert. I had pretty-much given up on the topic, but the internet of-course breathed new life into it. It too a while to get Bruce do an interview, and I have to say it is a frightful to say the least! My cousin Robert said to me; "I was giving up on it... Since hearing that interview, I'm in for life!" just a few more posts, my good man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts