Jump to content
xspider1

The 50th Anniversary of the amazing Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film has arrived and there is no debunk in sight! 8 )

Recommended Posts

Twist

I found it an overall disruption to other threads.  Should have been contained to just the thread pertaining to that subject.  I don’t feel SY needed to pretend to be the BFF’s white knight and save the forum against Kits claim.   Apparently though I’m wrong since admins allowed it.  I’m ok being wrong.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

The funny thing is Twist, SY continues to try to save the forum from Kit's claims.

 

Even though Kit is long gone from the forum :)

 

It's one of the many reasons SY is at the top of my ignore list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Yeah I’m a little miffed why his name still comes up so often from SY despite him being gone.  Apparently he still has a place in SY’s heart.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

It's not the moderator's job to read your minds.   We have also been told that they're short-staffed and don't have time to read every post.   If you see something and don't like it, report it.   Whining doesn't fix anything.

 

MIB

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
1 hour ago, Backdoc said:

 

All of that makes sense.  What if those conclusions, no matter how compelling, are somehow wrong?

 

People like me have one main issue with the PGF:  If it is a hoax then it should be easy to show us a suit or a reproduction of one in a same or similar manner as Patty.  But we need to be completely honest and apply that to the whole story.  If someone did make such a suit we would have to strongly consider it.  If further such a suit resulted in the arms and body proportions and so on being near or the same, what more could be say?  It would seem it could be a man in a suit, and maybe was.

 

Now that all being said, to date this has not occurred and it seems like the more time goes on the more it looks like an impossible task to accomplish.

 

We might say if someone confesses it doesn't change what is on the film.  But confessions or not, if what we see on the film is duplicated then it proves the PGF could be duplicated by man.  This may mean the same methods or similar methods which duplicated such a suit could have been used by Roger in 1967.

 

As far as confession go, I wonder what we would say if Gimlin came out tomorrow and said, " It was a fake.  i have been lying to you folks"   Does that have any bearing on the PGF?   Such a confession by Gimlin might have added details to make us go, "ahhhhh  OK, I see how they did it now.  Clever."   A Bob Gimlin confession would get my attention more than Joe Blow down the street.

 

If we say "Make a suit" and someone does in all those Patty behaviors, then it means Patty could be a man in a suit.

 

 

bd, I would say if the conclusions about Patty were somehow wrong, then there should be rational explanations as to how they were achieved. And we're still lacking these logical explanations.

 

As far as duplicating the suit;you are right that if it's a hoax then someone should be able to reproduce it. However, that's the easy part. The hard part would be finding someone to fill the suit the way we see in the film. Humans just aren't aren't built like that. If they were, Patty's IM index would be in human range but it's not even close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Okie there certainly are rational explanations to the PGF hoax. What may be viewed as 'rational' in the eyes of a skeptic may be considered 'irrational' to proponents.

 

Patty's IM has never been determined in the true sense of the term. Eyeballing lines and pixels on a computer screen is no substitute for the study and measurement of real bones and joints.

 

The guy inside the suit -- whomever he was -- was well within the human parameters of the IM index.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

There’s no whining going on, just stating my opinion. I’ve been very complimentary of the jobs administration do here.  Did I ever say anything negative about the mods or ask them to read my mind?  Nope, claimed that I had a different view and said I was obviously wrong.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cotter
3 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 

All of that makes sense.  What if those conclusions, no matter how compelling, are somehow wrong?

 

People like me have one main issue with the PGF:  If it is a hoax then it should be easy to show us a suit or a reproduction of one in a same or similar manner as Patty.  But we need to be completely honest and apply that to the whole story.  If someone did make such a suit we would have to strongly consider it.  If further such a suit resulted in the arms and body proportions and so on being near or the same, what more could be say?  It would seem it could be a man in a suit, and maybe was.

 

Now that all being said, to date this has not occurred and it seems like the more time goes on the more it looks like an impossible task to accomplish.

 

We might say if someone confesses it doesn't change what is on the film.  But confessions or not, if what we see on the film is duplicated then it proves the PGF could be duplicated by man.  This may mean the same methods or similar methods which duplicated such a suit could have been used by Roger in 1967.

 

As far as confession go, I wonder what we would say if Gimlin came out tomorrow and said, " It was a fake.  i have been lying to you folks"   Does that have any bearing on the PGF?   Such a confession by Gimlin might have added details to make us go, "ahhhhh  OK, I see how they did it now.  Clever."   A Bob Gimlin confession would get my attention more than Joe Blow down the street.

 

If we say "Make a suit" and someone does in all those Patty behaviors, then it means Patty could be a man in a suit.

 

 

^^I'm with Backdoc.

3 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

 

Has nothing to do with Kit.

 

 

 

My ears perked up with this.  C'mon Squatch!  There HAS to be something more you can share!

3 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 

Sounds good to me.

 

 

I have to disagree with you on this one.  SY questioning of Kit and his many claims is VITAL to finding the truth.  We don't know how many people read these threads and take what Kit would engage in his many KIT- isms .  Someone needed to stand up to that at each turn. That someone would also have to be 1) A person with a strong knowledge on the details of the subjects involved and 2) have a long enough relationship to the many posts on the BFF to be able to say, "well, wait that is not what you said on the same thing just 6 months ago"

 

SY's efforts have been vital as far as I was concerned.  How SY went about it was fine by me.  Further, he was largely returning the treatment Kit had displayed. Kit would often use various techniques which were wrong or out of bounds.  SY called him on it.  He was doing us a Public Service.

 

There are multiple people having a dialog with Kit on the BFF on any given subject.   In that process, I don't think SY or others should just sit there and let Kit get away with his many KIT-isms.    It is not as if SY or others are just sitting around making their life mission busting on Kit.  It seems they were just chiming in like any of us has the right to do.  Almost always these were done as telling "the rest of the story" so to speak.   

 

Thanks SY and keep up the great work.

 

I say all this as one of the few posters who might disagree with Kit often but was OK with him.  There aren't many in that club.  I think I am being fair about this.

 

 

 

 

^x2 - you're on a roll.

Share this post


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

Okie there certainly are rational explanations to the PGF hoax. What may be viewed as 'rational' in the eyes of a skeptic may be considered 'irrational' to proponents.

 

Patty's IM has never been determined in the true sense of the term. Eyeballing lines and pixels on a computer screen is no substitute for the study and measurement of real bones and joints.

 

The guy inside the suit -- whomever he was -- was well within the human parameters of the IM index.

 

Squatchy McSquatch,

 

If as you claim, her IM index hasn't been determined for proponents...then how has it been determined for your claim ?

 

Or is that just... "What may be viewed as 'rational' in the eyes of a skeptic may be considered 'irrational' to proponents." Cause ta me...sounds a little "irrational".

 

An the tracks ? MTB ? Depth...to deep for a person, so if hoaxed, they had to create a convincin' trackway as filmed an described by the witnesses, with anatomical characteristics beyond their knowledge, even argued by scientists until only recently...only to never cast those masterpieces that were well ahead of there time ! 

 

I believe you used this image not long back, I added a few highlights, such as the joints an angle of the foot(vertical heel).

 

Pat...

bob an patty.jpg

Edited by PBeaton
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Okie there certainly are rational explanations to the PGF hoax. 

 

 

That sounds good but something is really only rational if it fits the facts. That is, we all agree it is rational to think a key opens a door's key lock.  It is not rational to think a key which doesn't fit the lock opens the lock on the door.  Only the Real Door Key or one nearly identical  to it actually fits the lock can open the door. That is the only rational position.

 

If the suit don't fit she wasn't it.

If the stomper don't fit she wasn't it

If the walk don't fit, she wasn't it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
4 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 

 

I have to disagree with you on this one.  SY questioning of Kit and his many claims is VITAL to finding the truth.  We don't know how many people read these threads and take what Kit would engage in his many KIT- isms .  Someone needed to stand up to that at each turn. That someone would also have to be 1) A person with a strong knowledge on the details of the subjects involved and 2) have a long enough relationship to the many posts on the BFF to be able to say, "well, wait that is not what you said on the same thing just 6 months ago"

 

SY's efforts have been vital as far as I was concerned.  How SY went about it was fine by me.  Further, he was largely returning the treatment Kit had displayed. Kit would often use various techniques which were wrong or out of bounds.  SY called him on it.  He was doing us a Public Service.

 

There are multiple people having a dialog with Kit on the BFF on any given subject.   In that process, I don't think SY or others should just sit there and let Kit get away with his many KIT-isms.    It is not as if SY or others are just sitting around making their life mission busting on Kit.  It seems they were just chiming in like any of us has the right to do.  Almost always these were done as telling "the rest of the story" so to speak.   

 

Thanks SY and keep up the great work.

 

 

Thanks, Backdoc.  :) 

 

I am still interested in getting to the bottom of kitakaze's 'Patty suit' claim....and intend on looking into the matter further. 

 

 

You are 100% correct....I was doing absolutely nothing wrong, in questioning kit on his claim. He invited questions.....and he got them. He just couldn't answer them. :lol: 

 

And, regarding Twist's characterization.....that I "followed kit around on the forum".....that is a whacked claim. There is no such thing as 'following' anyone around, on an internet forum. There is no physical following/movement.

 

What there is.....are webpages.....displayed one at a time. The only "following" going on, involves time....not space.  

 

It is a sign of desperation....(from a skeptic, not a proponent).....to misrepresent my actions, and intentions, on the BFF.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
1 hour ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

Thanks, Backdoc.  :) 

 

I am still interested in getting to the bottom of kitakaze's 'Patty suit' claim

 

It was just a big nothing-burger.    :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton

                      ^ haha !  :o 

Image result for Hamburger Buns

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Btw, here is one discrepancy I noticed, a few months ago....in kit's many ramblings about his 'Patty suit' claim...

 

When Bill Miller questioned kit as to when exactly the Skype video call was....(when he allegedly "saw the Patty suit")....kit had trouble recalling when, within any sort of narrow time frame...

 

Quote

No, I don't recall the exact date. It was summer 2010 at a time when I was very actively interviewing, calling, and meeting with various people connected to the PGF.

 

 

(I couldn't find his posts, just now...but kit also delayed in providing a narrow time-frame for the "call", saying that he needed to find a post on Jref, in which he first mentioned "seeing the Patty suit".)

 

But, in conflict with his statement quoted above....when I questioned kit on the date of the "Skype call", some months later.....he said this...

 

Quote

 I responded with who I had been most closely in contact with at the time.

It was not until September that I actually went through my private email looking for what exchanges I had with mangler at the time and what exactly was said. What I found was that the date of the Skype call had to have been very close and prior to June 27, 2010, which was when our rash of communication began. Checking the emails I found I did not make any written mention of what we discussed on Skype, which was my being shown the suit. My rationale was that I had found something so important and so sensitive that I was insisting on face to face communication with anyone I spoke to about it and did not want anything written that could be used against me if the suit owner decided to try and get litigious. I did nothing illegal but I was not shown the suit by the owner so I felt the need to be extremely careful with whom and how I discussed what had been shown to me.

 

Usually by Skype is what I recalled in June. Always by Skype is what I know after checking this month the actual emails exchanged at the time.

 

 

The problem being.....how is it that kit had trouble recalling the date of the "Skype call", for Bill......when he should have, and would have, known that he had been having a "rash of communication with mangler via email and Skype" shortly after he "saw the Patty suit"???  :wacko:  

 

That "rash of communication".....which he has a record of.....would have been an event in his life which "coincided" with his great discovery.....and hence, would have stuck with him. 

 

Funny that he failed to mention/recall that "rash of communication with mangler"....when he recalled his other communications, in and around the time of the "Skype video call"...

 

Quote

It was summer 2010 at a time when I was very actively interviewing, calling, and meeting with various people connected to the PGF.

 

http://bigfootforums.com/topic/53328-about-that-alleged-video-stream-of-the-patty-suit/?page=4

 

 

kit's 'Patty suit' claim is a load of BS.  :) 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

That sounds good but something is really only rational if it fits the facts. That is, we all agree it is rational to think a key opens a door's key lock.  It is not rational to think a key which doesn't fit the lock opens the lock on the door.  Only the Real Door Key or one nearly identical  to it actually fits the lock can open the door. That is the only rational position.

 

If the suit don't fit she wasn't it.

If the stomper don't fit she wasn't it

If the walk don't fit, she wasn't it.

 

 

 

"something is really only rational if it fits the facts" 

 

Which facts Backdoc?

 

It's a fact that there is no concensus that the PGF is real... beyond your opinion. It's a fact that Bigfoot/sasquatch remains an unproven, romanticized, campified folk story, and that's okay.

 

The PGF as a key doesn't cut it. The BF lock is still firmly on the gates. The PGF allowed widerspread coverage and conversation of sasquatch and that's great. Even as a non believer I loves me some Samsquantch stories. But it's completely rational to conclude that the PGF was a bloke in a suit. 

 

That's a fallacious amount of ifs.

 

Maybe one day you'll have a bf to compare them to. Conversely, we could receive a thorough debunking of the PGF. My money, and my time and interest in the subject ;) is on the latter. 

 

Don't let that get in the way of your facts in the meantime. :)

 

Enjoy them while you still can. :596d4f9868d58_EmojiSmiley-05:

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...