Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Guest Bigfoothunter
56 minutes ago, Twist said:

Why am I not surprised that once again in this thread, we have talked about 5x track length and Kits bombshell..........

 

It's not 5x the track length, but rather 5x the track depth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
On 8/5/2016 at 8:42 PM, kitakaze said:

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.

 

 

 

1.)  You say that as if you have evidence that the tracks were not made by the film subject which (I think we all know by now), you don't.

2.)  Neither do you.  That's because there are no Bob feet there at all which is why the subjects feet (along with everything else about the film) cannot be replicated.

3.)  Good tracks and good casts indicate the size of the foot which made them without much room for error (except on your part).

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

^^^ The PGF section of the BFF can only be accessed by registered members and is not viewable to the public.

 

If you don't believe me see for yourself. Log out and try to access it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
19 hours ago, PBeaton said:

 

Were still friends.

Who can confirm ?

 

Bunch of old quotes...from what year ?

 

kitakaze...are you saying Heironimus and Gimlin are still friends based on your above quotes ? 

 

The quotes: Bob Gimlin - September 18, 2001. MoB, p. 422

 

My second interview with Bob Heironimus was in March 2010. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot

Regarding the tracks being made by the figure in the film: I remembered reading an article about one of the Russian scientists that had studied the casts and noticed a similarity between a cast and the left foot. I asked a question about the article some time ago and someone replied the scientist noticed one of the left foot casts had the same shape as the left foot as seen in the photo showing the bottom of the left foot.

I can't remember all the details so I can't recall if the scientist concluded the footprint of the cast was made by the same foot seen in the film or not.

 

Does anyone remember this? I can't remember for sure. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Bigpgfkillshot.gif

 

Scientist Prof. Jeff Meldrum...

 

"...Well, I'm gonna make the argument that the Blue Creek Mountain tracks were left by Patty, and John and I don't agree 100% on that. I'm not sure he's given any ground on that yet or not." (27:07)

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
44 minutes ago, OkieFoot said:

Regarding the tracks being made by the figure in the film: I remembered reading an article about one of the Russian scientists that had studied the casts and noticed a similarity between a cast and the left foot. I asked a question about the article some time ago and someone replied the scientist noticed one of the left foot casts had the same shape as the left foot as seen in the photo showing the bottom of the left foot.

I can't remember all the details so I can't recall if the scientist concluded the footprint of the cast was made by the same foot seen in the film or not.

 

Does anyone remember this? I can't remember for sure. 

 

 

In the O.P. of the first 'Patty's Feet...And The Footprints' thread, Okie.....I posted something showing a correlation between Patty's feet, as they are seen to bend as they lift off the ground....and the footprints at the scene.

 

Here is the link:

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/7117-pattys-feetand-the-footprints/&page=1

 

The odds of the correlation happening by 'random chance' is significantly lower than 50%.....because it is not only a matter of the 'sharp mid-foot ridge' appearing within one of the left footprints...it is also a matter of the 'sharp mid-foot ridge' not appearing in any of the right footprints....(since Patty's right foot does not exhibit the vertical lift that her left foot does.)

 

This means that there is a greater than 50% probability that Patty did indeed make the footprints at the scene. And if she did....she was a very real creature. :)

 

 

One note, regarding how that O.P.appears: There isn't any spacing between the sentences...but that is not how I composed/posted the post. The lack of spacing is probably a result of the Forum's new software. 

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

^ Can you not see that the bend in that costume covered foot is forward from where a mid-tarsal break would be?  Of course you can't.

 

3 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

^^^ The PGF section of the BFF can only be accessed by registered members and is not viewable to the public.

 

If you don't believe me see for yourself. Log out and try to access it.

 

Too funny, SMc.  Almost all public forums (such as the BFF) and public blogs as well require some sort of minimal registration prior to posting.  That cuts back on the trolling, the nasty stuff, spam, etc. (although it obviously does not eliminate those things :  |.   A private forum is one in which most people would not be allowed to post no matter what.  There are obvious differences between those two types of platforms.

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

 

 

In the O.P. of the first 'Patty's Feet...And The Footprints' thread, Okie.....I posted something showing a correlation between Patty's feet, as they are seen to bend as they lift off the ground....and the footprints at the scene.

 

Here is the link:

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/7117-pattys-feetand-the-footprints/&page=1

 

The odds of the correlation happening by 'random chance' is significantly lower than 50%.....because it is not only a matter of the 'sharp mid-foot ridge' appearing within one of the left footprints...it is also a matter of the 'sharp mid-foot ridge' not appearing in any of the right footprints....(since Patty's right foot does not exhibit the vertical lift that her left foot does.)

 

This means that there is a greater than 50% probability that Patty did indeed make the footprints at the scene. And if she did....she was a very real creature. :)

 

 

One note, regarding how that O.P.appears: There isn't any spacing between the sentences...but that is not how I composed/posted the post. The lack of spacing is probably a result of the Forum's new software. 

 

Thanks Sweaty. I wasn't on the forum back then so I hadn't read the post. When there are details in the casts that are similar to what is seen in Patty's feet, it's a very logical conclusion that the prints were made by the figure in the film.

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

Bigpgfkillshot.gif

 

Scientist Prof. Jeff Meldrum...

 

So instead of addressing the points made against your position - you want to talk about Meldrum's opinion that Patty made the BCM tracks which has nothing to do with Heironimus or the track evidence left on the sandbar.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

 

The only people that can view this part of the forum are signed members. Thus you can see what the viewership of this sub-forum is. Thus if their was ten people watching it would be an event. 

 

There's essentially about six PGF believers and three skeptics here discussing a piece of 60's Americana that is rightfully laughed out of the room in serious discussion of North American fauna and has the provenance of  Rodney Dangerfield joke.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze
27 minutes ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

So instead of addressing the points made against your position - you want to talk about Meldrum's opinion that Patty made the BCM tracks which has nothing to do with Heironimus or the track evidence left on the sandbar.

 

Try to arrive at the point where you understand when a person speaks of a Russian scientist coming to an unspecified conclusion that a PGF foot made a PGF cast without supporting evidence, it is cogent to call attention to the fact that another scientist, Meldrum, makes the argument that Patty's casts match the hoaxed event using stompers created by Wallace who was in collaboration with the editor of the Times-Standard and visited by DeAtley and Patterson.

 

Insert "in my view" "whacked" word salad with cheese over-sized emoticon collection deemed to be cutting and witty here... 

Edited by kitakaze
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
1 hour ago, kitakaze said:

There's essentially about six PGF believers and three skeptics here discussing a piece of 60's Americana that is rightfully laughed out of the room in serious discussion of North American fauna and has the provenance of  Rodney Dangerfield joke.

 

So, you have devoted like 1/3 of the spare time in your entire life to a failed attempt at debunking a subject with the provenance of a bad joke??  Seriously, kitakaze, I don't think anyone has spent more time on this than you, not even Bill Munns.  I'd have to suggest getting some help, or just letting it go.  8 )

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor locked this topic
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
  • gigantor pinned this topic
  • gigantor unpinned this topic
  • gigantor locked and pinned this topic
×
×
  • Create New...