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

DWA
36 minutes ago, xspider1 said:

^ Wouldn't you think that the Bigfoot naysayers should have been silenced with proof by now if we were dealing with large land animals in the traditional sense?  The point of this thread (i think : ) is to explore the possibilities for an explanation to this mystery.  The PGf subject has not, cannot and evidently will never be explained with a costume.  At the same time, we do not have any other explanation for which there is wide-spread acceptance.  I would not pretend to expect a deadline for proof of Bigfoot; it would just be good to understand the possibilities so that we might know what is most likely the deal with these things.  thx 

I think the evidence says:  unlisted primate.  No woo woo no orbing no shapeshifting.  An animal.

 

What has kept this field beyond the pale of scientific inquiry is people desperate for an explanation grabbing stuff out of thin air to explain "why no one ever sees one" (when of course people are seeing them regularly, possibly much more regularly than they are species we've confirmed).  None of the stuff grabbed, of course, is really subject to verification by the current tools of mainstream science.  I consider where we are totally unsurprising.  There may be no force in the universe stronger than denial.

 

And as I keep saying:  no one has been looking anywhere for any length of time that we should consider adequate to have gotten proof.

Edited by DWA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
53 minutes ago, xspider1 said:

^ Wouldn't you think that the Bigfoot naysayers should have been silenced with proof by now if we were dealing with large land animals in the traditional sense?  The point of this thread (i think : ) is to explore the possibilities for an explanation to this mystery.  The PGf subject has not, cannot and evidently will never be explained with a costume.  At the same time, we do not have any other explanation for which there is wide-spread acceptance.  I would not pretend to expect a deadline for proof of Bigfoot; it would just be good to understand the possibilities so that we might know what is most likely the deal with these things.  thx 

 

(I know I posed a question like this months ago)

With all the advanced computer technology we've had for a while, after all the analysis the PGF has undergone (and it's undergone a lot), and with all the analysis pointing to the subject as being an actual, real creature;

How likely is it that some future analysis of the PGF is suddenly going to start pointing to the subject as being a human? 

I think the odds are slim and none.

 

 

Edited by OkieFoot
reword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikeZimmer
54 minutes ago, DWA said:

...

 

What has kept this field beyond the pale of scientific inquiry is people desperate for an explanation grabbing stuff out of thin air to explain "why no one ever sees one" (when of course people are seeing them regularly, possibly much more regularly than they are species we've confirmed).  ..

 

 

Of course, we all know how "unreliable", "subjective", "anecdotal" all of these sightings are. The only reliable observers are scientists in their labs, publishing peer reviewed papers, with all of the proper statistics, in reputable journals, such as those gentlefolks working in the bio-medical research area. Oh, wait a minute:  

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

John P. A. Ioannidis    http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

 

http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

 

It would seem to me that the most parsimonious explanation is "real creature, probably primate" and that the relevant witnesses are those who spend their time in the field, researching, hunting, exploring, guiding, camping, hiking, or just living - and having sightings. A degree in some academic discipline such as primatology, physical anthropology, bio-mechanics, zoology, or some such field might be relevant, but most scientific fields have little relevance to the topic. Possessing an advanced degree in some irrelevant specialty has no value in establishing credentials with respect to our area of interest. Scientists, as a class, are no brighter than people in other professions, according to research that I have seen in years past, and my own experience with the breed confirms that conclusion for me. So claiming that some irrelevant degree gives one some special insight or capability does not cut it for me. On top of that, scientists as a class are just as subject to group-think, careerism, blind adherence to dogma, confirmation bias, illogic, and other intellectual pathologies as any other group.

 

 

Edited by MikeZimmer
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Looks like a bloke in a suit to me.

 

Can't wait to bump this thread in due time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
41 minutes ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

Looks like a bloke in a suit to me.

 

^ Does saying that over and over somehow explain how that "bloke in a suit" defies replication by a bloke in a suit?  Sorry, I'm not following the logic there, the imaginary PGF suit just isn't very convincing. :mellow:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
14 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

Looks like a bloke in a suit to me.

 

 

You always can be counted on to say that. We've yet to see anything substantiating your claim. But we've seen a lot that contradicts it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Teegunn

I have a saying for the PGF - It's not a dude in a suit.   There are so many things about the PGF that were (and still are) all but impossible (I will leave just a little wiggle room) to have replicated by a dude in a suit NOW, let alone back in 1967.  The many details that make it hard to think this is a dude in a suit are numerous and I won't list them all, but the PGF has met the standard to convince many that this was a real creature walking in 1967 that they filmed.  If new information becomes available that goes against that very reasonable stance, I will adjust my opinion.  As of now, I can't see how this was a dude in a suit.  Bottom line.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
17 hours ago, xspider1 said:

 

^ Does saying that over and over somehow explain how that "bloke in a suit" defies replication by a bloke in a suit?  Sorry, I'm not following the logic there, the imaginary PGF suit just isn't very convincing. :mellow:

 

McSquatch just throws that statement out there from time to time because he really hasn't anything to offer the discussion. There is no logic to what he says or why he repeats as often as he does with nothing to support what he has said. As you may recall - his level of understanding the evidence is that 'all someone has to do to make deep tracks in the ground is to put on a pair of large feet and stomp their feet down hard as they walk'. In reality the opposite happens and is probably why he has never shown what he says to be true.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

Like the rest of the scoffers he reminds me of the guy who comes outside while five people are talking about that beautiful full moon...to tell them the moon doesn't exist.

 

Yes, the evidence is that strong.  I don't talk to people who don't take me up on it.  Sometimes it may look like I am.  I am simply making an example of them.

 

You'd think that just one of them would want to prove the proponents wrong.  None of them do.  None of them can.  That's the very definition of an irrational stance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
On ‎7‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 0:51 PM, OkieFoot said:

 

I feel the reason some people would like to prove the film development timeline to be "impossible" is because they cannot prove the film is fake, so they try to do it through the timeline. 

 

But Patty's IM index is out of the ballpark compared to human averages.

 

The focus on the Timeline may be too much of a focus or too weighted by some Skeptics but I think the Timeline is very important.  It's all important to varying degrees just as important as the IM Index is very important.  They are important things since we can consider separate from the film. Also we need to be honest and admit if there is some major hole or some impossibility which just cannot be explained or add up at all, we must go where the facts take us. For instance, if 10 Hollywood creature guys appeared on Discovery Channel tomorrow and had to recreate Patty we could consider the implications to the truth of Patty if they all failed.   The timeline is just an additional consideration or accessory evidence to the film in my way of thinking. There are some who will use the timeline or anything else to reject all things Patty. Believers need to be careful when they reject these considerations or other things which they don't like just because of what it may suggest.  I think the timeline is still OK in support of Roger.  It would be better if we have the development timeline and details down and Iron Clad.  Without them there is this information void that can be filled with any crazy anti-PGF notion skeptics can imagine.  

 

There will always be some loose change or some little things in the most honest event or story that may not fit perfectly as we cannot know everything.

 

The Timeline is a very important point as is the development timeline.  How important is another matter.  For instance, when Jim McClarin was filmed at Bluff Creek in the following year, we don't need to know exactly if it was a Friday or a Tuesday or where the film was developed.  The issue here is we know it is obviously Jim and Jim is a real person.  Since the subject of Patty is the issue, all the things (IM INDEX, Timeline, Lie Detectors, and so on) all need to be considered. This is even true of the timeline.

 

BD

Edited by Backdoc
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

Backdoc -

 

I don't see them being relevant or reliable at the same level.   The film is the film, I haven't heard anyone say frame 362 was accidentally included from another film and wasn't relevant to Patty traveling the stream bed nor that two other frames appear out of order.   On the other hand, the timeline is a construct assembled from pieces from many sources and many could be argued to be relevant or not, mis-arranged or not, mis-dated or not, etc.   

 

... IMHO of course.  :)

 

MIB

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious

The timeline is irrelevant as is the backstory. They don't explain how Patty has her joints where they are.

 

The timeline and backstory are merely trotted out as a form of obfuscation to avoid discussion about the rather obvious problem of Patty herself.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
52 minutes ago, salubrious said:

The timeline is irrelevant as is the backstory. They don't explain how Patty has her joints where they are.

 

The timeline and backstory are merely trotted out as a form of obfuscation to avoid discussion about the rather obvious problem of Patty herself.

 

And they don't explain why Patty's tracks were 5 times deeper than actual human footprints nearby, or why Patty, without any arm extensions, had body proportions far outside human range. 

The film itself is still the bottom line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch
On 7/27/2016 at 0:54 AM, xspider1 said:

 

^ Does saying that over and over somehow explain how that "bloke in a suit" defies replication by a bloke in a suit?  Sorry, I'm not following the logic there, the imaginary PGF suit just isn't very convincing. :mellow:

 

 I can't follow your non-logic either.

 

I'll bump this thread when the suit is revealed.

 

Race toward bigfoot if you must but the PGF was an obvious hoax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×