Jump to content

The Conceptual Bigfoot


Guest OntarioSquatch

Recommended Posts

Guest Cryptic Megafauna

I posted else where but


post-25212-0-07282400-1451535583_thumb.j


This is a point to point comparison of a Robust Australopithecus skull mad be Dr. Meldrum that was sent to me by communication regarding what he thought of the possibility of an Australopithecus being the closest match. This skull is a P. Boisei

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest OntarioSquatch

The blurryness of the film allows people to match any hominid skull they want to her head, but if you look at eyewitness drawings and a clear copy of frame 350, all of them look human and not like any Australopithecus. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This is a point to point comparison of a Robust Australopithecus skull mad be Dr. Meldrum that was sent to me by communication regarding what he thought of the possibility of an Australopithecus being the closest match. This skull is a P. Boisei

I don't think the film is blurry; if that were one of your siblings you'd know which one.  It is about as clear as any movie film could do of a subject at that distance.  This point to point comparison is actually pretty reasonable, and to me shows that one really *can't* just match up anything to that image.

Edited by DWA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That frame is WWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY blown up...and still provides the attachment points for the comparison.  Which can be seen in much lesser magnification, as well; but why downsize the skull illustration when this makes it easier to see?

 

The film, as shot, provides everything needed to determine what - at least broadly if not taxonomically - that is.  If it is blurry...all movies shot in 1967 were blurry for every subject at that distance, which we know isn't the case.  "Blurry" is just another red herring.  The film...isn't.

Edited by DWA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admin

Well I can see from that photo that Patty does not have a head shaped like any human i have ever seen.

I can see a very pronounced brow ridge and a very peaked head. And she has no neck......none, even Schwarzenegger is jealous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are doing vision wrong

Whatever that means.  And whatever it does mean...we know that that subject is an animal that science doesn't have a decent handle on yet, other than:  probable hominid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Crowlogic

The frame is blurry even us none science, non maverick thinker types can see it's blurry.  So if we can see it why can't those science embracing, heavy thought types seem unable to see it?  I promise you if you assigned me to deliver a clear photograph of your dog and I gave you something like that Patty head you'd sue me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator

I posted else where but

attachicon.gifMeldrum.jpg

This is a point to point comparison of a Robust Australopithecus skull mad be Dr. Meldrum that was sent to me by communication regarding what he thought of the possibility of an Australopithecus being the closest match. This skull is a P. Boisei

There is nothing in our evolution tree that matches to what I saw or to what Patty is. So in my opinion it is like these creatures are set apart from our own evolutionary tree. So instead of there being two splits or three splits there four splits or maybe five ,six. I just think that their genes are different from APE and Chimps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The frame is blurry even us none science, non maverick thinker types can see it's blurry. 

 

Show me a BF photo that isn't blurry.

 

 

So if we can see it why can't those science embracing, heavy thought types seem unable to see it?

 

Because you haven't read all of those reports.

 

 

 I promise you if you assigned me to deliver a clear photograph of your dog and I gave you something like that Patty head you'd sue me.

 

 

 

It wouldn't look blurry to him though. Keep up now.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Incorrigible1,

 

Why not toss in the ones who debate non-existence as well just to be fair. The Forum's post would be smaller by half just by eliminating the hard for and the hard against. Oh but the boredom would destroy the rest IMO. It's much more fun just the way things are. Happy New Year BTW! :) 

Edited by hiflier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...