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

Backdoc
BFF Donor
16 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

This video=- in spite of being a set up to try to convince us Bob H is Patty- should hit anyone between the eyes on the diff walking dynamic of Bob (on any person) vs. Patty.

 

It has been stated before on some of these video shows and on the BFF, when people walk they walk more like pole-vaulting stiff legged from one step to the next.  

 

Patty walks nothing like this.   That seems universally agreed upon.   

 

Even in this cropped Patty comparison, it is obvious Bob H looks nothing like the Patty walk.  Bob H actually looks more like "Time for Timer" on 1970s Saturday Morning Cartoon with his 'hanka for a hunka cheese' 

 

I will be open to the idea Patty could be a hoax but the walk of Patty- if a hoax- must be from one of two things both which are long shots:

 

1) The walk is tied into the dynamics of the suit itself/ rubber feet causing the odd patty walk

2  The patty walk is a trained plan or designed walk somehow carried consistently by somehow over the varied terrain.

 

The Patty walk is Nothing like the human walk and at least we can say NOTHING like any walk Bob H has done.

 

Patty could be a hoax but lets not change what is obvious just so we can fit it into some theory.

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

People seem to spend a lot of time on this kind of attempts at debunking Patty. The video fails for two reasons. 1) It doesn't show the non-Human like lower leg/heel lift that Patty had and 2) these kinds of demonstrations do not show the 10" difference in shoulder width. The video utterly loses on both counts and only proves that skeptics are trying to run their own brand of hoaxing by constantly trying to stuff Heironimus into the 'suit'. But hey, children must play so..........

 

Why is it that skeptics NEVER risk plugging their cherry-picked arguments into the entire context? The game is obvious, old, and tiresome. Over and.....outa here.  

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin
9 hours ago, Starling said:

Of course footers have to discredit Bob H!

 

 Of course they have to claim his inconsistencies outweigh those of Roger's and Bob G's (which are many). Of course they have to claim he doesn't match the guy in the suit.

 

If they don't do that...they don't get to keep their magical man-ape.

 

And in their minds, logically, that won't fly. 

 

 

Still waiting, Pat :) Where is the film record of which you speak?

 

 

I am quite certain the creature does not exist. I am even more certain that the film subject is not Bob H.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
2 hours ago, hiflier said:

People seem to spend a lot of time on this kind of attempts at debunking Patty. The video fails for two reasons. 1) It doesn't show the non-Human like lower leg/heel lift that Patty had and 2) these kinds of demonstrations do not show the 10" difference in shoulder width. The video utterly loses on both counts and only proves that skeptics are trying to run their own brand of hoaxing by constantly trying to stuff Heironimus into the 'suit'. But hey, children must play so..........

 

Why is it that skeptics NEVER risk plugging their cherry-picked arguments into the entire context? The game is obvious, old, and tiresome. Over and.....outa here.  

 

 

Just to let you know, hiflier....there is no need for you to be the one who has to leave. This being a forum primarily designed to be for proponents, or at least the open-minded towards the subject....it is the proponents who should be staying, and the scoffers who should be leaving. 

 

You can make them all "go away", all on your own......via the wonderful 'Ignore' button. Try it....you might like it. ;)  

 

 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Hiflier probably feels like I do.   117 pages and about 1750 posts in this thread   At this point in time everything that can be said probably has been said more than once and the thread is a perfect example of beating a dead horse.     People have argued about the names of those dead horses too.   For some reason some skeptics think if they can just prove the film a hoax,  BF does not exist.   The two are not logically bound to each other.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch
3 hours ago, hiflier said:

 Over and.....outa here.  

 

See ya :)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

And my point is I don't engage intelligent people who consistently throw dung at the wall KNOWING it won't stick but throw it anyway just to throw it. It's a joke.

 

@ Squatchy.........don't worry, my friend, you still lose big time, either way you look at it. Makes me happy that you know that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

He's resorted to throwin' false evidence ta boot, claimin' the Hodgson '63 tracks were PGF tracks ! Pretty lame !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
1 hour ago, SWWASAS said:

Hiflier probably feels like I do.   117 pages and about 1750 posts in this thread   At this point in time everything that can be said probably has been said more than once and the thread is a perfect example of beating a dead horse.     People have argued about the names of those dead horses too.   For some reason some skeptics think if they can just prove the film a hoax,  BF does not exist.   The two are not logically bound to each other.  

 

 

117 pages.....1750 posts....and the "dead horse" that is being beaten is a live....(or, once living)....Sasquatch......(as effectively proven by the analyses done here, on this forum.)

 

In my mind, that is a horse well-worth "beating". 

 

The arguing with scoffers is the part that I have no interest in....and am baffled about, as to why a bunch of proponents continue to do it. 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin
14 hours ago, PBeaton said:

He's resorted to throwin' false evidence ta boot, claimin' the Hodgson '63 tracks were PGF tracks ! Pretty lame !

16 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

I am quite certain the creature does not exist. I am even more certain that the film subject is not Bob H.

I do think the tracks look similar. The 1963 track seems to be more splayed as I would expect from a non shoe wearing individual 

Thanks for the reminder. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker
15 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

The arguing with scoffers is the part that I have no interest in....and am baffled about, as to why a bunch of proponents continue to do it. 

Yes, we all understand. Must you state this with every post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
1 hour ago, dmaker said:

Yes, we all understand. Must you state this with every post?

 

 

For the time being, sure...I'll talk about it frequently. I see it as an important issue.  But, I won't harp on it forever. :) 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton
4 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

I do think the tracks look similar. The 1963 track seems to be more splayed as I would expect from a non shoe wearing individual 

Thanks for the reminder. 

 

Patterson-Gimlin,

 

Here, just put this together for a comparison. To me, the PGF cast toes look more splayed. 

 

Pat...

 

track cast 67 vs 63.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin
21 hours ago, PBeaton said:

He's resorted to throwin' false evidence ta boot, claimin' the Hodgson '63 tracks were PGF tracks ! Pretty lame !

I think they do look similar. However, the  Hodgson tracks appear to be more splayed apart than the  Patterson  film subject in my humble opinion. 

Pat

I think you are correct with the casts. I was referring to the picture you showed me in the mud. Perhaps  the cast is the same as in the picture. The  picture  print looks like a shoe wearer from the best I can tell. 

Anyway, thank you very much as always for taking the time to respond. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

Patterson-Gimlin,

 

You welcome, here is the cast of that particular print in the mud compared to the '63 cast.

 

Pat..

track casts '63vs'67.jpg

Edited by PBeaton

Share this post


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

×