Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
masterbarber

Was It A Suit? (2)

Recommended Posts

Squatchy McSquatch
1 hour ago, salubrious said:

 

I had asked Squatchy, since he keeps saying that it looks like a bloke inna suit, to line up Patty's joints with a real bloke and see if he can see what the problem is. I think I've mentioned something to that effect about 10 times at the most, so this time since I felt that was likely not going to happen, I asked if the idea of Patty being real was in any way disturbing.

 

The idea of Patty being real isn't disturbing to me. I find the notion ridiculous, but not disturbing.

 

comparison1.pngcomparison2.jpgComn-ElbowExtendersComp2_zps7f442c9a.jpg

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

I like how the red lines don't line up LOL!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest OntarioSquatch

The images that Squatchy posted are good enough to determine that the film subject's skeletal morphology is nearly identical to that of a regular person, but one can't necessarily infer from it that it's a person in a costume. 

 

If it's real, and humanoid enough to match up so closely with the average person, then it's going to be quite a challenging mystery to solve. That's what has been happening here with debates over the PGF.

 

Going by other eyewitness accounts as well, it's almost guaranteed that any "sasquatch" caught on film or video will match up just like how Patty does with a regular person. Much to both proponents' and denialists' dismay, there's no getting around this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

Her thigh is as big as his waist. Let's see the red line for that one.

IMG_0146.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch
1 hour ago, norseman said:

I like how the red lines don't line up LOL!

 

Oh I've got lots more.

 

How about a side by side comparison with a photo of a real Bigfoot. Just for the heck of it.

 

Can you do that Norse?

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch

Share this post


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

 

The idea of Patty being real isn't disturbing to me. I find the notion ridiculous, but not disturbing.

 

 

Not as disturbing as I find your whacked-out body alignments.

 

You claim Patty is a man in a suit and then unwittingly try to show matching reference points. A man in a suit would not match your illustration. You left nothing for one fitting inside the other. Shrink the man down so to fit inside Patty with all that alleged padding and shoulder pads and show us what you came up with. Kind of throws your alignments out of whack - doesn't it!

 

smileyvault-cute-big-smiley-animated-013_zpsife78trr.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ohiobill
23 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 

I would disagree.  Perception is important.  I have no problem with those who "feel" or think its a man in a suit.    But, on the point you make here the question would be: are All witnesses the history of Bigfoot reporting all mistaken?   We can agree for Bigfoot to be a hoax/ not exist All their perceptions in all of history would need to be mistaken.

Backdoc, do you believe in fairies, chupracabra, werewolves, lizardmen, vampires, mothman, lake monsters, dragons, etc? I don't care either way, I'm just asking to see if you have consistency in your argument or if you hold bigfoot to a different standard. If you don't believe in every cryptid with multiple sightings then your argument has a fairly large hole in it. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

ohiobill,

 

Do all your cryptids mentioned have similar evidence...or is that your fairly large hole ?  

 

Pat...

Edited by PBeaton
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

I think what they do have in common is eyewitness accounts and in some cases  blurry photos and films  . As we know very unreliable  evidence when it comes to undocumented  creatures.

One more thing in common is undocumented  and no specimen to test and examine.

I do admit it is much more likely for large man apes to exist than other mythical beasts.

Edited by Patterson-Gimlin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
57 minutes ago, ohiobill said:

Backdoc, do you believe in fairies, chupracabra, werewolves, lizardmen, vampires, mothman, lake monsters, dragons, etc? I don't care either way, I'm just asking to see if you have consistency in your argument or if you hold bigfoot to a different standard. If you don't believe in every cryptid with multiple sightings then your argument has a fairly large hole in it. 

 

 

 

Each of those would have to be taken on a case by case basis and each has a diff level of possibility.  For instance, there could be a scientist who does not believe in bigfoot but might believe in lake monsters.  That is why a reasonable person would know these things cannot be equally grouped.

 

my point on eyewitness has to do with comments made about eyewitnesses of a bigfoot.  I am more than open to the idea bigfoot may not exist and the PGF could be a hoax.  All eyewitness accounts of a bank robbery are not created equal nor would one expect they would be in other events.  So here we are at the bigffot sighting witness.  Could be many things and it could be they are right.  Roger and Bob had such a sighting with an impressive film as well.  A lady camping on a Discovery channel reports seeing bigfoot and them got out of there.    She has no film.  I would like to hear more from her but would put more consideration to this sightng than a lizard man sighting.  

 

You  wish to group all these unrelated sets and subsets togather which seems foolish to me.

 

Pbeaton sums it up pretty well as well regarding verying level of evidence.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
6 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

I think what they do have in common is eyewitness accounts and in some cases  blurry photos and films  . As we know very unreliable  evidence when it comes to undocumented  creatures.

One more thing in common is undocumented  and no specimen to test and examine.

I do admit it is much more likely for large man apes to exist than other mythical beasts.

 

Especially given video evidence as special as the Patterson-Gimlin film....Patterson-Gimlin. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

Yes, it is an awesome film. I have never denied  it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
9 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

 

Oh I've got lots more.

 

 

 

Here is one of the images Squatchy posted...with part  of it's filename added to it...

 

Comn-_Elbow_Extenders_Comp2_B.jpg

 

 

That was forum member 'Comncents'' attempt at replicating Patty's arm, as seen in F362....via the use of "Elbow extensions"... :lol: 

 

Two problems with Comn's attempt...

 

1) Nobody would ever have tried to "lower the elbow" of a guy they had wearing a suit. Before the PGF...there was no precedence for Sasquatches having such an oddly-proportioned arm. Hence.....no reason why something like that would have ever entered a person's mind.....to try to create.

 

2) The "elbow extended" arm does not match Patty's. It looks....(like most every aspect of a 'man in a suit')......like CRAP.  

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin
13 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 

Did Kit take off for good or for a while?

 

 

Yes ,he is hanging out with crowlogic in the banned section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

No offense Sweaty but I don't think you're capable of looking at things objectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...