Jump to content
xspider1

The realism of the Patterson-Gimlin Film subject cannot be replicated with a costume so; what are the possibilities?

Recommended Posts

PBeaton

 

xspider1,

 

Thanks, appreciate it. :drinks:

 

On ‎2018‎-‎02‎-‎17 at 7:28 PM, Squatchy McSquatch said:

I disagree with misinformation and poor documentation.

 

Squatchy McSquatch posts the above in response to my post, yet fails to explain when asked.

 

On ‎2018‎-‎02‎-‎23 at 2:48 PM, Squatchy McSquatch said:

Starling...

I've got a pic of a PGF track with a set of tinsnip next to it. For scale. It's documented as the large one fwiw :) I'll post it later tonight.

 

I let him know the image I believe he is talkin' about is not a PGF track, providin' the info to the image below.

 

On ‎2018‎-‎02‎-‎23 at 4:12 PM, PBeaton said:

Bigyear1.jpg

 

Squatchy McSquatch,

 

Hope it's not this pic, cause this has nothin' ta do with the PGF. It was tracks found by Al Hodgson in Bluff Creek in 1963. The snips are 10 1/2 inches long for scale.

 

Lookin' forward to seein' your pic..."I've got a pic of a PGF track with a set of tinsnip next to it. For scale. It's documented as the large one fwiw :)

 

Huh...funny...I can't help recallin' you recently quotin' my response post to you...followed with your vague reply..." I disagree with misinformation and poor documentation." I say vague Squatchy McSquatch, because I asked what you felt was misinformation an poor documentation...got nothin', go figure ! ;);) 

Pat...

 

He then posts this. Talk about misinformation an poor documentation. He claimed the image he was postin' was "..a PGF track with a set of tinsnips next to it.", which it is clearly not, an he knows it ! 

 

20 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

 

bluffcreektinsnips.jpg

 

 

^^^ BTW Starling, there's your 'to scale comparison' right there. A large size pair of tin snips. Evidently there was a 'smaller' version of the tinsnips... But this is the documentation and that's how it all went down... :)

                                                                                      Image result for Zero Credibility Meter GIF

Edited by PBeaton
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Starling
On 25/02/2018 at 11:51 PM, PBeaton said:

 

Is gettin' tryin'...

 

 

I don't believe it is I who has failed to understand your question, rather your continued failure to grasp what I am sayin' an showin' ! 

 

 

As I've repeatedly said, the Laverty photo is the clearest example. An as I've repeatedly said, my opinion there is evidence of the MTB in much of the track evidence. You somehow failed to remember your seein' it in the reel two track before I introduced the Laverty photo, here. I've quoted you on this already, "The problem is the only print that this 'pressure ridge' appears on definitively is in that one you've illustrated." it is in the post above. Your words, your recognizin' it, you said "definitively" ! You also said..."With the rest of the surviving track stills it's not nearly as clear cut."  As I've said...again...repeatedly, not as clear as the Laverty track photo ! 

 

 

You yourself recognized the same characteristic in two separate tracks, only questionin' the one after the clearer Laverty photo was introduced. I'll include another image for you to ponder.

 

 

I don't believe... "..it indicates that to this eye witness the ridge only appeared on ONE print.", those are your words, not his. 

Below you'll see the Laverty track that shows the MTB, you'll also see that same characteristic in a track that the rains got to an isn't as clear...an example of what I've been sayin'. An no, a stick does not account for it in the track in question, nor the other evidence of the MTB. 

Lavertyphotos.jpg

 

 

Clearly I disagree, my opinion it is quite close. I would love to see you take the time to at least present somethin' to support your views. Feel free to show the differences.

 

 

That goes both ways, but you have failed to present anythin' to show these discrepancies. An I didn't say "..see how the cast would slide into the reel 2 print.." , I said I believe they show the same midfoot pressure ridge, one clearer than the other. 

"I also see you adjusting your lines to accomodate the ridge.." "Adjusting" implies alterin', I've done no such thing, I just put that image together, both tracks vertical, white line below big toe an small, black line just anterior the ridge an at back of heel. Show where I've adjusted any lines !

As I said, I think they're aligned pretty good in my opinion, but feel free to present your version so we can critique your observations for once.

Your maintainin' it looks pretty human is your opinion, so far you've said..."Who's to say those tracks weren't simply made by Patterson's own bare feet in soft clay-like sand?The sleigh- of-hand no one seems to be seriously considering is that boot prints may be a smaller scale than that of an adult's boot and were placed individually and lightly by hand. I've offered this child's boot theory before and received only mockery but I've yet to hear any logical objections as to why this could not be the case!" , could have been someone else's human footprint, could have been made by a stomper an more recently..." So my fall back theory is that 'ridge' could simply have been caused by the hard edge of a cowboy boot pressing down through a semi-flexible stomper. " You fail to grasp these tracks are 14 1/2 inches long an 1 1/2 inches deep, an were witnessed by other witnesses, no matter how hard you try an believe this didn't happen...it happened. 

 

 

"Forced"  hahaha ! Chose, but it's funny because I followed that by "The correlation between these pieces of evidence combined the the filmed subjects foot, suggest this to be the case, so no, I can't think of another explanation." As I said, I'm confident in my opinion as apposed to your clear uncertainty in yours.
 

Do you even realize I just said "my opinion" ? You just tried to say I was somehow forced to say it ! haha ! An as I said, I'm confident in my opinion based on the evidence we have. If you find the images compellin' or not, is up to you. I've presented the known evidence to support my opinion, whether you or anyone else finds it complellin' is out of my hands, while you have not presented me with anythin' compellin'...in my opinion.    

 

 

I chose to address your opinion more so for others, than yourself. Perhaps when you become more familiar with the known evidence, you won't be so quick to flip-flop or dismiss the evidence. An actually, the films, photographs an casts do make it clearer...in my opinion.

 

By your claim of me bein' selective an dismissin' of evidence are you referrin' to Napier ? I addressed my reasons for that to you already, or are you bein' selective an dismissive ?

An while we're talkin' bout Napier, you made these claims..." Could you respond to Napier's dismissal of the tracks as being connected to the subject in the film?"  as well as this one..." The size and depth had Napier (a better expert than you or I ) completely rule out the tracks being connected to the 'creature.'Can you please provide where Napier rules out the tracks bein' connected to the filmed subject, far as I recall he said the feet were to big for the estimated height of the subject, thus his thinkin' the filmed subject a likely hoax. 

 

 

You say I have failed when you've just said the more you familiarize yourself with the evidence. You fail to realise I've spent years familiarizin' myself with the evidence an tryin' to understand it...your failure to recognize that is yours an yours alone.  

 

 

It's funny, because I have used the photographic evidence to support my opinion. What have you presented to show ."Who's to say those tracks weren't simply made by Patterson's own bare feet in soft clay-like sand?The sleigh- of-hand no one seems to be seriously considering is that boot prints may be a smaller scale than that of an adult's boot and were placed individually and lightly by hand. I've offered this child's boot theory before and received only mockery but I've yet to hear any logical objections as to why this could not be the case!"  Nothin'...

"Sorry Pat. I call B.S. on this. If the only way you have to link those photos to tracks documented in reel 2 (which conveniently disappeared from the chain of evidence) is cos someone said they're linked then all you have is word of mouth." You don't even recognized the reel two images as bein' from reel two.

 

"Your Reel 2 photo-fit comparison simply doesn't match so either you are mistaken with that or being disingenuous in the alignment of your comparison."

"..I also see you adjusting your lines to accomodate the ridge.." 

"If you disagree with this then you're just being plain dishonest."

 

If you think I'm not bein' genuine or honest...there's not much reason to continue the conversation. So here endith the lesson as they say. 

 

ps:Sorry for the long post folks, just figured I'd address his claims.

 

 

Lyle Laverty track photo.jpg

TrackwaycompositeWIP.jpg

 

 

Oh Darn it, Pat!

 

You've done caught me out!

 

You've done argued me into the ground!!

 

I'm done. 

 

Seriously.

 

You win. :)

 

You're right and I'm just plain flat wrong.

 

I admit it.

 

I see it now.

 

I only wish I'd seen it earlier. 

 

Might have saved myself the humiliation. 

 

There's little alternative for me now other than to become a full-blown believer. 

 

I hope there's room for me on that side of the fence.

 

Should have realised plain and simple that the Laverty photo wasn't the only footprint that showed the 'mid-tarsal break.'

 

Should have known that, clearly there were, well, perhaps two or three that kinda, sorta, looked like they might (possibly) at a stretch, maybe...if you overlooked the ones that don't have that 'mid-tarsal' break AT ALL, be indicative of a - absolutely no doubt whatsoever your honour- completely unquestionable definitive- 'mid-tarsal' break... that no one could possibly have known about in 1967.

 

And that is that.

 

I just wish I 'd known for the start that you'd spent decades feverishly studying the evidence and that this absolutely guaranteed your ability to come to an incontrovertibly correct conclusion about how those prints were formed.

 

Man, I could kick myself.

 

I really could.

 

If only I could be as confident of my opinion that there is ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION (whatsoever) FOR THAT SMALL HANDFUL OF PRINTS other than an actual real live  bigfoot. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
BFF Donor

Omniscient PGf sarcasm is great for the average detractor, however, it's a tribute to the BFF and to many who have posted here that we are probably closer to the truth regarding the PGf than we have ever been before.   

 

"ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION" is a pie in the sky, Starling.  PGf proponents cannot necessarily bring Patty to the next super-bowl party, none-the-less all indications point to her being a B I G F O O T.  If you can post ANY information to the contrary then please do so, otherwise, let's be reasonable  

Edited by xspider1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

 

Others arriving at Bluffcreek after the filming event saw plaster outlines of Rogers track plaster pouring after the PGF event?  

 

When Grreen and McClarin arrived the next spring I am told they could still see traces of the plaster from others taking plaster casts in the past of Patty's tracks.   Interesting since Bob. H contended Roger went back to fake some tracks with a plaster stomper.  If the soil was, "White as snow" as bob H said, how could others see the traces of plaster from castings done months before their spring Bluffcreek trip?    In his radio interview he contended that plaster stoppers he stated that Roger Patterson used and took with him- even if they crumbled - would not be seen on the soil because they were both the same color.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
BFF Donor

Is this the missing reel? 

 

(I thought a little humor might be a nice break in the thread) ;) 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker
10 hours ago, xspider1 said:

If you can post ANY information to the contrary then please do so

There is absolutely zero proof that bigfoots exist.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
23 minutes ago, dmaker said:

There is absolutely zero proof that bigfoots exist.

 

 

Well, I am glad you got that cleared up. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

We have a film of Roger making a plaster pouring of a Bigfoot track.  The Q comes up as to this being a pouring of a print at the PGF site or if was a Demo at another time and location and so on.   

 

It seems obvious some film of Roger pouring some tracks- even if was some demo and not at bluff creek- could not be evidence of a hoax.  First off, the fact Roger allows himself to be filmed doing this seems a little foolish.  But isn't the big issue the fact pouring a casting leaves traces of doing this.  Those who would come upon the site right after the filming would see traces of the plaster and other ground disruption. This was observed at bluff creek right after the event so someone made some plaster casting of those tracks there at that location.

 

What seems more likely?  

 

1)  Tracks are made by a walking figure and Roger and Bob do as they reported and take plaster casts of those tracks on the same day as the event.  Others arrive the next day or two and after the see traces of that same after effect. That is, outline on a couple of tracks of Roger's casting of some of those prints and all the disruption of the ground with Patty and horse and cowboy boot presence.  

 

2)  Roger fakes tracks at another site (?) and then pretends to take the hoaxed plaster casting.  Then also he goes to Bluff Creek and takes plaster casting materials and some stomper with him there as well (?) and fakes some at Bluff Creek also?

 

We are also told by some "There is no direct proof the walker (Patty) made those tracks".   Putting aside the logic, I will say it is at minimum HIGHLY SUGGESTIVE the walker made the tracks - be they of a real creature or a man in a suit with "rubber" feet:

 

We know the total PGF event site would have the Patty tracks, Roger and Bobs horses activity running all around, boot prints, and so on.   Lyly L said he was there just the day before and he and the other 3 (?) in his jeep did not see any of these traces along a road that runs right by the filming area.   That is a road you could not just fly down at 55mph but at a much lover speed due to conditions.  So it is possible they did not see the traces on the sandbar.  This might be true if the PGF resulted in only Patty prints on the sandbar.  However this requires all 4 in the jeep missed any human presence while sitting over 4 foot  above ground.  Then, we are told by Bob H that is was 'hunting season and I was worried I would be a shot in my butt' or words to that effect.  Those in the jeep would be at least more alerted of noticing human presence.   Being an honest man, Lyle Laverty years later states it was very possible he missed the prints the first time they drove by.  Considered in total, this is not likely.  We know Lyly L -after hearing maybe at the Ranger station or something about he PGF news- went back right after the event nearly the next day or so and documented the tracks by taking some pics.  This gives us a short window for the event to happen.  Others arrived as well over the next few days weeks.  Thanks to Lyle L, we all know the skeptics attack his timeline window more than nearly any other point in the PGF since it is one of the most damning to their multiple hoax details they need to line up.  Put simply if Lyle L is correct and his earliest memories are more accurate then Roger and Bob had to film the event on 10/20.   There would need to be a lot of 'to do list' things in just that short window to pull off that hoax in broad daylight and out in the open.  When you add a need to fake tracks, it strains honest skeptic logic.  Since the skeptic knows deep down such faking -if it could be done - would require much time and some unknown set of skills to look like the Lyle L photo tracks , they create the offsite hoaxing no matter how obvious it cannot fit into other details about the bluff creek tracks.  The need the offsite location since deep down they know you could really pull it off in a day.  Yet, they seem to forget they also say the PGF site itself has FAKED TRACKS ANYWAY according to their own theory.

 

It is not Proven the walker on the PGF made the tracks we think of as the tracks but the details of this make it so Highly Suggestive it was the resultant tracks of either a suited human or a unknown creature.

 

 

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

Yes, and the fact that after all this time and all these alleged sightings we have not a single shred of proof is highly suggestive that bigfoot is an imaginary creature. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Your use of the word "alleged" indicates you discount every witness report.    If a single one of the hundreds of existing reports was factual, you are wrong.   It only takes one for you to be wrong.     Just on the basis of probability I would not declare it suggestive that BF is imaginary.   Probability would suggest otherwise.   Probability is not proof.    But then again,   quantum theory is based on probability too.   We cannot prove quantum theory but it explains the observations.   I see a lot of similarity with regards to BF.     You do believe in probability?   If the only BF sighting was the P/G film then the probability of existence would be near zero, but there are hundreds if not thousands.   

Edited by SWWASAS
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

I absolutely discount each and every witness report.

 

1 hour ago, SWWASAS said:

If a single one of the hundreds of existing reports was factual, you are wrong.   It only takes one for you to be wrong.

 

Then go prove and confirm a single one of the hundreds of existing reports. You seem to be suggesting that a witness report should remain proven until disproven.

 

At the end of the day, the hundreds of existing reports have resulted in numerous confirmed hoaxes, but never a single confirmed BF. That's some probability for you right there, and it's quite damning for the proponent camp.

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

One cannot prove an event.   You can probably conclude something happened at a given place an time but cannot begin to prove anything one way or the other.   .Look at the controversy about the moon landings. I have seen some reasonable arguments with pictures  that they did not happen even though I saw the launch happen live on TV.     I have seen no reasonable arguments with pictures or data that the P/G film was hoaxed.   If you had it,    this thread would not exist.    .   But you skeptics keep reminding us that witness testimony, footprints,  and even pictures are not proof.  I accept that.  But you cannot expect those things to support existence either.      What data do you have on the "numerous confirmed hoaxes"?      Most hoaxers never admit it.  They throw stuff against the wall, hoping it sticks until they mess up and hoax is obvious and their reputation is destroyed.   ..   Then they stick their tail between their legs and slink off.   Anything that does not address data is just your opinion.  Yes there are hoaxers.    But the fact there are hoaxers is not proof that all sightings are hoaxes.   The only proof of existence at this point is a body on a lab table.    That can happen.    Proof of nonexistence cannot.   The rules of logic and science are not in your favor.  

Edited by SWWASAS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Bigfoot And that's why BF is an imaginary creature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
24 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

One cannot prove an event.   You can probably conclude something happened at a given place an time but cannot begin to prove anything one way or the other.   .Look at the controversy about the moon landings. I have seen some reasonable arguments with pictures  that they did not happen even though I saw the launch happen live on TV.    

 

Funny you should mention that controversy, SWW.... ;)  ....I have been doing a little analysis of my own, on the moon film footage. 

 

I am looking into a line of analysis which I haven't seen covered in any of the 'moon hoax' videos....and, have found one discrepancy in this detail, between two different missions.

 

I'll post more about it, after I do some more research and analysis. And, I'll be posting a video about it on Youtube. 

 

 

One other aspect I've thought of, that doesn't look right to me.....is how the astronauts "bounce along" on the moon. They move slowly, both upwards and downwards....but yet, in much lighter gravity....they should....(I would think).....move upwards faster than normal....given that their muscle strength isn't any less than it was on Earth, and the resistance/pull of gravity is quite a bit less than normal.

 

It seems to me that they should be moving upwards faster than normal...and then coming down more slowly than normal. 

 

Instead, their skipping/bounding along on the moon appears simply as if their motion is a slowed-down video of them moving on the Earth....(it's about equal speed...up and down.)

 

 

 

4 hours ago, dmaker said:

Somehow, I don't think it will stick. 

 

 

 

That's fine.....this is a Bigfoot Forum.  ;) 

 

It's really only a problem on Da Sewer...Jref. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×