Jump to content
Cotter

How much longer should we wait for a PGF recreation before it's determined it can't be done?

Recommended Posts

SweatyYeti
1 hour ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

As a matter of fact. Yes. Lol.

 

He did come forward. I just don't believe a word he says. :D

 

 

No, the "guy who wore the suit" has not come forward, PG.

 

Bob Heironimus is lying about being in the film. Most everybody knows/understands that.....(including yourself).

 

 

Quote

i don't see how that it is possible that it is not a guy in a suit. I am reasonably convinced the creature is a mythical beast with no documented proof of a flesh and blood specimen...

 

 

Thanks for admitting your closed-mindedness...(when it comes to the subject of Bigfoot's possible existence).  You are just another extreme skeptic/scoffer.  And, I don't bother trying to discuss the evidence, and the analysis, with the scoffers....beyond simply mentioning specific bits of evidence.  :) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

I want the creature to exist. I  will be more open to the possibility when there is some real evidence. Namely a specimen to examine,test and reexamine.

Oh,and you are welcome. I do enjoy the stories and the evidence thus far presented. One more thing. I still think the film subject is a  7 footer. :lol:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

 ^^ Definitely agree with the idea that if real, Patty’s right at the 7’ range based on supposed print castings and possible stride. 

Share this post


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

 

 

You are just another extreme skeptic/scoffer.  And, I don't bother trying to discuss the evidence, and the analysis, with the scoffers....beyond simply mentioning specific bits of evidence.  :) 

 

 

Meanwhile, sweaty has made 2,919 at ISF (formerly Jref), a skeptic forum.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I want the creature to exist. I  will be more open to the possibility when there is some real evidence. Namely a specimen to examine,test and reexamine.

Oh,and you are welcome. I do enjoy the stories and the evidence thus far presented. One more thing. I still think the film subject is a  7 footer. :lol:

 

 

 Wouldn't a specimen be self evident requiring no open mindedness.?

 

i keep waiting for these suit guys to show me how it is an obvious fake, demonstrate it, and we will call it good.  It could happen.  I think most agree it has not happened until now.  When I think about that, I think how most pranks if not all are quickly explained and demonstrated by others.  A hoax under the scrutiny of today would have a hard time standing.  

 

An entire TV show was focused on a photo said to be Amieila Erhart and Fred. Noonan as captured/rescued by the Japanese.  Within days of its airing the photo was shown by a viewer out of a book published back then proving it could not be them.

 

where are these efforts to crush the PGF like a bug?

 

winston, Walas, baker.....    These guys have resources, a tv in their face, and so on.    ZERO.

 

the TV Media will jump at any report of any analysis claiming to see "bell Zippers" and things on any closer look at the PGF.   Where are these discoveries?

 

is it so unreasonable to think maybe just maybe the reason the PGFstill stands is because in the end it is of a real creature?

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

There is no evidence for a hoax.  There is no evidence for a suit.    The scoftics do not want to talk about that so they change the subject and try to drag it back to "Patty can't exist so it has to be a suit".   That's ALL the evidence there has ever been for a suit.   That's not evidence.  That is conjecture.  

 

MIB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

The zipper question, or lack of them,   cannot be answered by the PGF.   That film has pretty much been mined out of any more usable data.     My great fear is that the skeptics turn out to be correct as to current existence but decades wrong making the judgement.     The really sad thing would be for Patty to be the last known video of a female BF.     The Last of the Dogmen NA experience comes to mind.   While that movie was fictional,   in the early 1900s a NA speaking only an unknown NA dialect wandered out of the Sierra Nevada, and made it know that he was the last living member of his tribe, who had avoided contact with Californians for decades.     Activity in my research area has dropped to nothing.   One of the group that used to be there was a mature female with small juvenile.     I have no idea what has happened to either of them.   The possibilities are horrific to think about.        

Edited by SWWASAS

Share this post


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

There is no evidence for a hoax.  There is no evidence for a suit.    The scoftics do not want to talk about that so they change the subject and try to drag it back to "Patty can't exist so it has to be a suit".   That's ALL the evidence there has ever been for a suit.   That's not evidence.  That is conjecture.  

 

MIB

The evidence for a hoax is flimsy at best. The film has stood the test of time as best as it can . Studied and restudied.. The film stands alone in the simple fact it remains great evidence,but

falls short in the simple fact it is not proof and after 50 years it is safe to say it will remain what it is an unsolved mystery. I am fine with that. if the film depicts a real life creature ,perhaps she was one of the last of her kind. A real dinosaur.  What does not measure up to this wonderful film is the evidence since the film .

That speaks volumes. No real evidence that constitutes proof. Foot prints and eyewitness accounts  and still no specimen, identifiable DNA ,no bones,. Yet smaller  animals with far less numbers are discovered frequently.

It then becomes down to belief, wishful thinking,bigfoot on the brain ,lies and misidentifications. it is difficult  to believe that giant man apes exist in  North America.

 

They are more likely of spiritual belief entangled in religion and such as the case with Native Americans  and  other parts of the world like the Yeti is in Nepal  for example. Labels are placed on  individuals as trolls, scoftics, believers and knowers.   In the case of trolling I have seen very good examples of this. I have also seen very convincing believers. As far as knowers .It is my honest opinion there are none.

Share this post


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

I want the creature to exist. I  will be more open to the possibility when there is some real evidence. Namely a specimen to examine,test and reexamine.

Oh,and you are welcome. I do enjoy the stories and the evidence thus far presented. One more thing. I still think the film subject is a  7 footer. :lol:

 

 

 

All of the height calculation methods indicate a 'walking height' somewhere in the range of about 6'2" to 6'6".  

 

The strongest indicators being Bob Gimlin's height estimate.....and two 'foot ruler' measurements....(using Patty's feet, in 2 different film frames).

 

Patterson-Gimlin also wrote:

Quote

It then becomes down to belief, wishful thinking, bigfoot on the brain ,lies and misidentifications.

 

Says the man who makes-up a 7' height for Patty.....based on absolutely nuthin'.  :lol: 

 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

In 1980 Gimlin  said on Arthur C. Clarke's mysterious universe tv show. That the creature was between 6 and 7 foot tall. No babble at all.:D

 

 

Edited by Patterson-Gimlin
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

The zipper question, or lack of them,   cannot be answered by the PGF.   That film has pretty much been mined out of any more usable data.     My great fear is that the skeptics turn out to be correct as to current existence but decades wrong making the judgement.     The really sad thing would be for Patty to be the last known video of a female BF.     The Last of the Dogmen NA experience comes to mind.   While that movie was fictional,   in the early 1900s a NA speaking only an unknown NA dialect wandered out of the Sierra Nevada, and made it know that he was the last living member of his tribe, who had avoided contact with Californians for decades.     Activity in my research area has dropped to nothing.   One of the group that used to be there was a mature female with small juvenile.     I have no idea what has happened to either of them.   The possibilities are horrific to think about.        

 

 

In my conversations with Bill Brann....head of the Northern Sasquatch Research Society, in Whitehall, NY....he has been saying, over the course of the last couple of years, that there has been very little in the way of new evidence, or sighting reports, in the Upstate New York area. 

 

It's not a good trend. 

 

 

9 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

In 1980 Gimlin  said on Arthur C. Clarke's mysterious universe tv show. That the creature was between 6 and 7 foot tall. No babble at all.:D

 

 

 

Nonetheless...."between 6 and 7' " does not necessarily equate to Patty being "7'" tall.....the height that you seem so "sure" of. ;) 

 

Also, I recall reading that when Roger estimated Patty's height as about 7'...Bob disagreed with him, and said something about Patty being in the 6'+ range. 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin
7 minutes ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

 

In my conversations with Bill Brann....head of the Northern Sasquatch Research Society, in Whitehall, NY....he has been saying, over the course of the last couple of years, that there has been very little in the way of new evidence, or sighting reports, in the Upstate New York area. 

 

It's not a good trend. 

 

 

 

 

Nonetheless...."between 6 and 7' " does not necessarily equate to Patty being "7'" tall.....the height that you seem so "sure" of. ;) 

 

Also, I recall reading that when Roger estimated Patty's height as about 7'...Bob disagreed with him, and said something about Patty being in the 6'+ range. 

 

See there Roger knew it .  Gimlin meant 6' + 12" range. Besides that it takes one to know one . :P

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

See there Roger knew it .  Gimlin meant 6' + 12" range. Besides that it takes one to know one . :P

 

Roger "knew" Patty was 7' tall???  To be more accurate, PG....you are the only person who "knows" that.  :lol: 

 

I rather doubt Roger "knew" it....since he was looking through a camera viewfinder for most of the time Patty was walking by. Bob Gimlin had the better, longer look at the subject. 

 

And, don't forget....the two 'foot ruler' height measurements indicate a 'walking height' of a little over 6'. 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

Blah blah friend. .I have read several members on here other than this most humble one also state the film subject was in the 7' range.

 

Foot ruler is obviously flawed. Not too bad only a foot off. :rolleyes:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
5 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Blah blah friend. .I have read several members on here other than this most humble one also state the film subject was in the 7' range.

 

Foot ruler is obviously flawed. Not too bad only a foot off. :rolleyes:

 

 

It has more science behind it than your unsupported babble. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...