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
8 hours ago, Twist said:

You say I scoff at it, but that means you take silence as "scoffing".  That is a major fail on your side in my opinion.  A true hardcore skeptic will scoff at your evidence. My silence at such, in my opinion is only a proof of an open mind.

 

If I stay silent and do not openly deny it, does that not lead a bit of credence to accepting or at least reviewing your opinion? 

 

Are you of the idea that your opinion is SO RIGHT and SO OBVIOUS that anyone on the fence has to not only JUMP RIGHT OVER but ANNOUNCE THEIR VIEW being in line with yours?   

 

Silence is never confirmation nor lack there of.  IMO.  

 

So far you have just sat in silence ... not because you deny the creatures existence, but because you have not addressed the evidence. You have not offered a solution to the tracks being so deep in the ground while other men barely makes an impression in the ground. I have illustrated the hinge point on the gorilla's foot and compared it to the foot print left behind at the PGF site and all I have heard so far is your beliefs without an explanation of the evidence. I see that as merely scoffing at evidence..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

I'm curious how I scoff in silence?

 

Scoff:  speak to someone or about something in a scornfully derisive or mocking way.

Share this post


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

 

The only excuse is why Patterson's dedication has never been replicated.

 

 

 

 

 

My Q to you is this: "why Patterson's dedication SUIT has never been replicated?"

 

BD

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator
4 hours ago, Twist said:

I'm curious how I scoff in silence?

 

Scoff:  speak to someone or about something in a scornfully derisive or mocking way.

 

 

I'm with you on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
4 hours ago, Twist said:

I'm curious how I scoff in silence?

 

Scoff:  speak to someone or about something in a scornfully derisive or mocking way.

 

 

By not addressing the previous information. To scoff can also mean to - pooh-pooh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

That's a bit of a stretch IMO.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
2 hours ago, Twist said:

That's a bit of a stretch IMO.  

 

Four responses since this illustration below was offered again and you have not addressed anything. Not that much of a stretch to me.

Bipedal gorilla _ Laverty photo_human hinge point.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Why am I obligated to respond to your posts? And how does me not doing so make me a scoffer or pooh-pooh ?  Especially when its the same thing you seem to bring into every thread, track depth track depth track depth.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
28 minutes ago, Twist said:

Why am I obligated to respond to your posts? And how does me not doing so make me a scoffer or pooh-pooh ?  Especially when its the same thing you seem to bring into every thread, track depth track depth track depth.....

 

It's  evidence. Hinge points is evidence. You ask for evidence and/or proof and don't bother to look at it. You dismiss it (which is another tern found under "scoff" - dismiss, make light of)  . And its ok - maybe it makes you uncomfortable. I am interested in the forensics of those things - others may not be.

 

Now you have responded five times without offering anything of value to the evidence I raised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Make this six times.  

 

You have no idea if I have considered it or not, refusing to engage you in regards the track depth you drag into almost every conversation/thread is not scoffing it. If anything it's dismissing you, not necessarily the evidence.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
2 hours ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

Four responses since this illustration below was offered again and you have not addressed anything. Not that much of a stretch to me.

Bipedal gorilla _ Laverty photo_human hinge point.jpg

 

Bigbend.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
3 hours ago, kitakaze said:

 

Bigbend.jpg

 

Yes Kitakaze, but the fake rubber toes have no push-off ability because the ball of the foot and toes are in the light colored area.

Bipedal gorilla _ Laverty photo_human hinge point.jpg

 

The Patterson creature demonstrated toe flexion and the ability to press deep into the substrate. Side show Bob Heironimus has a stiff arch like most people unless you wish to state otherwise and open the door to one more way to catch Bob H in a lie. You see you have Heironimus being Patty and her foot was 14.5" long. Heironimus would have nothing to fill her toes as his foot would not be that long. And Bob H said he wore boots/shoes in his costume, thus no way to flex his toes. If barefoot - no way to get his toes to the area Patty's toes are.

 

"Oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive."     

 

morriscostumefoot.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

1 - You have no reliable evidence that the tracks were made by the film subject.

 

2 - You do not know where in the suit foot Bob's toes exactly are.

 

3 - You do not know exactly how long Patty's feet are, only the lengths of the tracks and casts.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
1 minute ago, kitakaze said:

 

2 - You do not know where in the suit foot Bob's toes exactly are.

 

 

 

They were in his pants pocket....right next to his wallet... :haha: 

 

kitakaze wrote:

Quote

1 - You have no reliable evidence that the tracks were made by the film subject.

 

You have no reliable evidence....period. :haha:

 

So, dude....what was the "Major Bombshell" that Bobby revealed to you??? Was it that right during the 'look back'....he farted? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
7 minutes ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

 

They were in his pants pocket....right next to his wallet...  

 

Maybe they were on Mars...

 

 
Quote

 

NASA deliberately presented a distorted view of the Face to the world, in a long-awaited "high-resolution" look at it. As a result of this worthless image, all serious interest by the mainstream media and the general public was effectively killed.

 
 
But wait....there's more...       :).....
 
In 2001, the MGS took a real high-res image of the Face, and.....against all odds....details of an eye appeared....
 
face11a.jpg
 
For comparison...here is the original Viking image...showing the large dark area that gave the impression of an 'eye'...
 
face2.jpg
 
 How there happened to be anything at all within that dark area, even remotely looking like a detailed eye is beyond me.

That is truly 'against all odds'.

 

 

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...