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

Bigfoothunter
40 minutes ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

 

 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.

 

Other than you repeating the same line ... try and address the things that are being said as to why people believe it to be real. If you truly believe its a hoax, then you should be able to intelligently detail why its a hoax. Anything less is just Jibber Jabber as you would call it.

 

The forum guidelines touch on this by saying the following:  " Skeptics welcome! Assuming you don't come in with preconceived and immovable notions regarding Bigfoot and those who discuss the phenomenon, you'll find a spirited and thought-provoking debate waiting for you here. But keep in mind, this is a Bigfoot forum. You must accept the proponents point of view if you expect yours to be considered. This is by nature a Bigfoot House and is intended to foster intelligent discussion of the subject. This is not The Anti-Bigfoot Forum. "

Edited by Bigfoothunter
word edit
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
BFF Donor
1 hour ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

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

 

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

 

Don't hold your breath!  8 )~  Race away from Bigfoot if you must, but you are obviously not escaping the subject matter.  That is obvious by the fact that you are on a Bigfoot forum arguing (ineffectively) with the same rhetoric over and over regarding a film for which neither you nor anyone else has any evidence to debunk.  Nice try though.  8  )      

Share this post


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

 

 I can't follow your non-logic either.

 

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

 

 

Don't hold your breath! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin
3 hours ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

 

 

The forum guidelines touch on this by saying the following:  " Skeptics welcome! Assuming you don't come in with preconceived and immovable notions regarding Bigfoot and those who discuss the phenomenon, you'll find a spirited and thought-provoking debate waiting for you here. But keep in mind, this is a Bigfoot forum. You must accept the proponents point of view if you expect yours to be considered. This is by nature a Bigfoot House and is intended to foster intelligent discussion of the subject. This is not The Anti-Bigfoot Forum. "

Thank you for the reminder. I know in this case you were not directing it at me.  Anyway, I am guilty as well.

For that I regret  it, if I have offended anyone with my Anti- Bigfoot  beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
On ‎7‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 0:48 PM, 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.

 

 

I will admit the Timeline has no direct effect on what we see on the film.  It has no direct effect on what we see on pivot points and INDEX numbers and so on.  I am just saying I think it is helpful to know more about info the timeline.  This is true if for no other reason if the skeptics use these details for an attack on the credibility of the film, we can answer by actually knowing the real facts.  If all one does is focus on the film and give no consideration to the other things, how can one answer them when they are told has half-story truths or cherry picked to cast doubt.  The timeline and things like it are supportive information to the PGF.   For instance, I did not now until joining the BFF Roger Patterson was himself hoaxed twice post PGF.   I knew some obscure story about him getting ripped off by some person claiming Bigfoot evidence in some monastery.  I had not heard about an additional con where he had lost money getting ripped off by someone claiming to have bigfoot body/ info.  What do these things have to do directly with what is on the film?  Nothing.  Extra details helps support the other conclusions though.  This calls into Q how unlikely a man who would know the film is a lie would fall for another's lie not once but twice.  Bill Munns wrote WRMP with his focus on what he film shows./ What the film is telling him.  He did not get into all of that other stuff and that it wise. It is often the off ramp to crazy town or at least leads there.  Still, the background stuff is important. We must guard both skeptics and believers alike in dismissing stuff just because we don't like what it seems to tell us.

 

Take a film of a man robbing a bank. The video shows the robbery at exactly 1pm and suggests it was him.  If that same man did not leave work until 12:45 that day and the drive to that robbed bank took 2 hrs in traffic it might strongly suggest what we see on the film is probably not him but someone who looks like him.  The details of the timeline help determine what we see on the film.  There is no doubt the skeptic wing of the BFF have invested heavily in cherry picking details of these other non-PGF issues.  Such skeptic cherry picking results in the conclusion is what they wish it to be.  <---- That is the peril of the middle of the road person or the PGF believer engaging in such a discussion with the die hard skeptic.

 

Bob Gimlin states there was a full moon that night. Looking at the record there was a full moon or near full moon (by one day which would look like a very bright or full moon) that night back in 1967. This has nothing at all to do with what is on that film. But it does once again support the idea of the main consideration: Is what we see on the film a real creature.

 

For the film to be a real creature many of the side details would need to add up and make sense.  I have not read any smoking gun on the BFF even as it relates to the side issues.  Often, these are just  no big deal or things which have reasonable explanations by anyone not married to the skeptic position and blinded by it.

 

The film is paramount.  <----- That has always been my position. 

 

BD

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

The film is evidence tantamount to proof.  The scoftics keep asking the proponents when the statute of limitations is on confirmation.  It's long over on PG.  PG is genuine.

22 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

 

 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.

You know, your 'line' of 'reasoning' would have been banned from any other science forum.  Long ago.  You know that, right.

 

You keep thinking you're someone we care about convincing.  We know you're wrong.  You  need to catch up.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Faenor
On 7/28/2016 at 11:55 AM, OkieFoot said:

 

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.

The 5x footprint depth is an impossibility for the creature in the film I've already demonstrated this on the forum.  This screw up is demonstrates the whole thing was a hoax perpetrated by film flam men.

 

The IM index is make believe no one has successfully demonstrated this in any convincing fashion.  It's just believer wishful thinking in an attempt to rule out a man in a suit.  There is a reason Meldrum or other bigfoot scientists never actually follow up on this and write a paper demonstrating exactly how the dimensions fall outside the human range.  It's cause no one can.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HOLDMYBEER
On 7/28/2016 at 9:10 AM, Backdoc said:

 

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

BD,  you are absolutely correct. The importance of details carries varying strength with different people. Some don't care about them at all.  But until the details all match up they are destined to argue about loose ends with other people who just don't buy it. Things would be so much simpler if magic had never existed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator
3 hours ago, Faenor said:

The IM index is make believe no one has successfully demonstrated this in any convincing fashion.  It's just believer wishful thinking in an attempt to rule out a man in a suit.  There is a reason Meldrum or other bigfoot scientists never actually follow up on this and write a paper demonstrating exactly how the dimensions fall outside the human range.  It's cause no one can.

 

 

This statement is false. I can. Bill Munns did. His work is extensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

^^

 

Faenor appears to like to just tell us about things that we know much better than he does. Once again - he doesn't detail what is wrong with Munn's work - he just wants to say its not been done.

3 hours ago, Faenor said:

The 5x footprint depth is an impossibility for the creature in the film I've already demonstrated this on the forum.  This screw up is demonstrates the whole thing was a hoax perpetrated by film flam men.

 

And how did you demonstrate the track depth created by the creature was an impossibility? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
BFF Donor
On 7/29/2016 at 3:46 PM, Backdoc said:

Still, the background stuff is important...

 

Whereas I agree that circumstantial evidence can be interesting and sometimes even compelling; I try to keep the particular nature of this subject in mind.  The word "Bigfoot" is a funny word and, in my experience, most people fall into two categories:

 

1.) those who are content to chuckle at the word Bigfoot and just let it go

2.) those who feel compelled to ridicule the subject and to ridicule anyone who seriously considers it

 

So, it's not surprising that there are any number of twisted variations in what has been proposed over the years (by a few people in particular) in regard to how an alleged PGf hoax was allegedly perpetrated.  The interesting thing to me is that none of those twisted variations has ever amounted to a hill of beans.

Edited by xspider1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

I don't know if this 911 call is real or a hoax but I am curious how the skeptics explain these type of things. 

 

 

In a call or incident like this these are the things which seem honest enough.  These are the type of witnesses who tend not to be sure of what they saw or if they suspect they saw something weird tend to be afraid to make a report.

 

My Q to the skeptics is this:  Put aside the reports which you can consider (for reasons of your own) weak.  What do you say about those 25, 50, or 100 eye witnesses who claim to be pretty confident they saw something which to them looked like what we might call Bigfoot?

 

BD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

That can ( may not be ) as simple as a either

 

A) A false call to 911.  AKA, the whole thing is staged from caller to dispatcher. 

 

B ) A false call into a legitimate 911 dispatcher, the caller is making the whole thing up.  Easy to say its gone off the premises if/when police show up.

 

C) A legitimate call that scared the crap out of the caller. 

 

D)  A true mis-identification of a large person.  

 

Either way, its no more legitimate than any other claimed sighting of bigfoot.  Just because there is an audio recording lends no more credibility than any other reporting that does not have actual evidence to back it up.  I do not have an opinion one way or the other about this, just reporting the possibilities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

My goodness, Patty is in hi def compared to this thing.  I see nothing in that video worth viewing a second time.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×