Teegunn Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 Who here believes Patty is a new world monkey? I am not among them. This creature continues to plague me. As a non believer. I am haunted by the simple fact I can not dismiss this creature as folklore and fantasy. That is because the PGF film shows a creature which has too many features that would most likely be all but impossible to achieve in a suit. Even now, let alone almost 50 years ago. This film is also the single most important thing that has me on the side of skeptical believer. Lots of other things seem hard to believe - like having no body, very little picture of video evidence, etc. No bones, etc, etc.... but I cannot discount what I see in the film, nor can I discount many thousands of eyewitness accounts as ALL being either faked or misconception. 1
bipedalist Posted November 8, 2015 BFF Patron Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) All phony sasquatch things come to an end, RIP H.A. Miller who never knew a sasquatch from a Redwood: https://squatchdetective.wordpress.com/2015/11/07/the-hoax-fest-begins/ LNP rests in good company in the Sasquatch Hall of Shame Edited November 8, 2015 by bipedalist
Lake County Bigfooot Posted November 12, 2015 Posted November 12, 2015 The level of detail took a little work, and it is a somewhat cleverly worded and thought out document, however it is phony as bologna and does not deserve our attention any more than some muppets, although this gets my nod for cleverness over that. I think that something might exist of this type somewhere but it will not be a self biography, more of an internal document between departments. I do believe our government knows about these creatures and perhaps has had the opportunity to study one dead or alive. The rational for not revealing this to the public is multi fold and I do not think we have much of a clue to why, only to say they have their reasons, some not all bad.
Guest TexasTracker Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 More red flags: If he were sitting down to write about his findings on the species, why wouldn't he either reference his own notes, or go into greater detail about the physical properties of this animal? A doctor is sitting down to write about he's life's work, discovering a new species & verifying it a few times over... and this is reduced to only 4-5 pages??? The different thumb location has been reported a few times before that I can recall. No medical professional would look at teeth and assume a double row??? then determine they are just large molars??? "Scent glands" along their forearms? He talks about one dying in captivity and he references great white sharks dying in captivity... VERY, VERY little was known about great whites until just recently?? He makes reference to the "large and complex brains"being the reason they can't be held in captivity (Guess we better let all of our inmates loose based on this notion)... "they quickly die as a protective mechanism"....dying is FAR from a protective mechanism...??? These are ridiculous assumptions...No one of any medical background would jump to conclusions like these Just my take on the paper, CG
Recommended Posts