Jump to content
norseman

Thinker Thunker size comparison of Patty

Recommended Posts

hiflier

Thanks PG :) You, know I've done the shoulder width ratio thing, the step length to height estimates and all and know that someone could and has argued each point. And by themselves it's difficult to call upon any single point and say not a hoax. But take just those two things and add them to facial movement, the stride length, the calf musculature, the lateral knee movement, the leg lift angle, and all the rest of what we've looked at and boy, it's suddenly not that simple to just say hoax. I look at Patty walking and am in wonderment but there's so much more to it because what follows that wonderment is the impact of what her very existence brings to the table. I get shivers sometimes just thinking about it as I realize more and more just why science has to, or is ordered to, turn its back on the PGF.

 

I see the TV news people when they relay reports to the public and how they treat those reports and can actually SEE the impact that the PGF has made. No one dares to let Patty out of the box. In my humblest of opinions there has to be a way to break through this. And even though I know only a physical specimen will do that I still think Patty and the PGF are strong enough to at least crack the armor. It's why we hammer away at this. Never mind the skeptics, there not one, not two, but THREE very big fish to fry out there. They are called the American Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Getting a strong foot in the door of anthropology, zoology, and primatology I only a first step. If that can get done then the big dogs on the block will be next. At least that's MY goal.

 

Of course if I just rode out with a blunderbuss of some kind with Norseman everyday life with Patty might be lot simpler LOL.   

 

 

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Your last two posts are pretty spot on Hiflier.  

 

As a BF proponent yet a PGF skeptic, the PGF hasnt sold me fully as of yet based on the characters involved as well as questions about things such as the timeline.  All that aside I do think that what we see on the film is very convincing and possibly real.  When one of the big fish you speak of endorse it then I would probably be convinced its the real deal.  This is a case where I question some details enough that I'm willing to admit that people with expensive degrees are better equipped to tell me what I'm seeing.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin
16 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Thanks PG :) You, know I've done the shoulder width ratio thing, the step length to height estimates and all and know that someone could and has argued each point. And by themselves it's difficult to call upon any single point and say not a hoax. But take just those two things and add them to facial movement, the stride length, the calf musculature, the lateral knee movement, the leg lift angle, and all the rest of what we've looked at and boy, it's suddenly not that simple to just say hoax. I look at Patty walking and am in wonderment but there's so much more to it because what follows that wonderment is the impact of what her very existence brings to the table. I get shivers sometimes just thinking about it as I realize more and more just why science has to, or is ordered to, turn its back on the PGF.

 

I see the TV news people when they relay reports to the public and how they treat those reports and can actually SEE the impact that the PGF has made. No one dares to let Patty out of the box. In my humblest of opinions there has to be a way to break through this. And even though I know only a physical specimen will do that I still think Patty and the PGF are strong enough to at least crack the armor. It's why we hammer away at this. Never mind the skeptics, there not one, not two, but THREE very big fish to fry out there. They are called the American Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Getting a strong foot in the door of anthropology, zoology, and primatology I only a first step. If that can get done then the big dogs on the block will be next. At least that's MY goal.

 

Of course if I just rode out with a blunderbuss of some kind with Norseman everyday life with Patty might be lot simpler LOL.   

 

 

Your welcome of course. The film is awesome and very compelling . It of course will never be accepted by main stream science . As a man a science I agree with that mentality. 

As a person with interest I am intrigued. It is the best evidence by far. Some of the foot prints are somewhat interesting. I completely discount the eyewitness reports. Even though i enjoy reading and hearing them. 

Suffice to say there is enough interest and a case for further study . More effort by science  should be conducted.  However, no specimen constitutes no definitive proof. 

Needs to be examined and tested and retested. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
20 minutes ago, Twist said:

This is a case where I question some details enough that I'm willing to admit that people with expensive degrees are better equipped to tell me what I'm seeing.

 

^^^

I absolutely respect you for saying this, Twist. I mean, I respect you anyway ;) but you are correct, and I think the best indicator would be a scientist of some renown who gets turned once they truly look at the evidence on the film. A good sound history of what has been analyzed placed into their lap would also help greatly, but only if they are willing to read and accept what has been done so far by a group of essentially non-credentialed individuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
58 minutes ago, Twist said:

Your last two posts are pretty spot on Hiflier.  

 

As a BF proponent yet a PGF skeptic, the PGF hasnt sold me fully as of yet based on the characters involved as well as questions about things such as the timeline.  All that aside I do think that what we see on the film is very convincing and possibly real.  When one of the big fish you speak of endorse it then I would probably be convinced its the real deal.  This is a case where I question some details enough that I'm willing to admit that people with expensive degrees are better equipped to tell me what I'm seeing.    

 

 

What details on Patty are the most "convincing" to you, Twist? :popcorn: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
2 minutes ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

 

What details on Patty are the most "convincing" to you, Twist? :popcorn: 

 

35 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

^^^

I absolutely respect you for saying this, Twist. I mean, I respect you anyway ;) but you are correct, and I think the best indicator would be a scientist of some renown who gets turned once they truly look at the evidence on the film. A good sound history of what has been analyzed placed into their lap would also help greatly, but only if they are willing to read and accept what has been done so far by a group of essentially non-credentialed individuals.

 

The film as a whole is rather convincing.   No one detail has convinced me of its authenticity, hence me being on the fence.  As far what details I find "convincing", the supposed foot length, the supposed stride length, the fluid movement of Patty, the shoulder width numbers.  There are probably a few other details that I am missing.   

 

 I cannot make the statement and conclude what is on that film is a real deal BF, a convincing argument for Patty does not necessarily make me convinced.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
16 minutes ago, Twist said:

 

The film as a whole is rather convincing.   No one detail has convinced me of its authenticity, hence me being on the fence. 

 

 

 

Interestingly, that's very similar to what kitakaze said, when I asked him which details on Patty he found to be "compelling".  He wouldn't cite any one detail...but rather, he said it was a "harmony of details", that impressed him, many years ago. 

 

It was almost as if he was just BS'ing us, in claiming that he had once found the PGF to be "compelling/impressive/realistic". ;) 

 

 

Quote

As far what details I find "convincing", the supposed foot length, the supposed stride length, the fluid movement of Patty, the shoulder width numbers.  There are probably a few other details that I am missing.   

 

 

So, you find Patty's "foot length" to be "convincing"...as to the subject being a real creature??? How so? Do you think it is difficult to put over-sized shoes on a human being? 

 

Do you find the appearance of a contracting calf muscle "convincing"?  

 

How about the exceptionally long upper-arm, and the relatively short lower-arm? Are those 2 details more, or less "convincing"...(to you)...than the subject's extra-long foot? :) 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
2 minutes ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

 

Interestingly, that's very similar to what kitakaze said, when I asked him which details on Patty he found to be "compelling".  He wouldn't cite any one detail...but rather, he said it was a "harmony of details", that impressed him, many years ago. 

 

It was almost as if he was just BS'ing us, in claiming that he had once found the PGF to be "compelling/impressive/realistic". ;) 

 

 

I believe your friend Hiflier just posted a post today stating how essentially the preponderance of the evidence over-rides any one details that is off regarding the PGF.  I mirror this sentiment but in different words while still being skeptic.  Sorry if my opinions or beliefs in BF in general do not come off as sincere to you, fortunately for me,  I'm not looking for your acceptance on the subject.   

 

 

I've given you enough ideas on what I find convincing regarding the film, this thread is not about my personal beliefs on every aspect of the film. 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
11 minutes ago, Twist said:

 

I believe your friend Hiflier just posted a post today stating how essentially the preponderance of the evidence over-rides any one details that is off regarding the PGF.  I mirror this sentiment but in different words while still being skeptic.  Sorry if my opinions or beliefs in BF in general do not come off as sincere to you, fortunately for me,  I'm not looking for your acceptance on the subject.   

 

 

I've given you enough ideas on what I find convincing regarding the film, this thread is not about my personal beliefs on every aspect of the film. 

 

 

 

Once again...Twist cannot answer my questions. :)  I'll leave it up to the readers, to decide for themselves why that is. 

 

Here is a quote of what kitakaze said, when I asked him which details on Patty he.........."found compelling"...

 

Quote

As you can see, Sweaty, when I first joined the JREF I made clear that there wasn't any one feature of Patty that made her look real to me, but rather what I called a harmony of features. 

 

And....what Twist said, to the same question...

Quote

The film as a whole is rather convincing.   No one detail has convinced me of its authenticity, 

 

As the old saying goes......Skeptics of a feather.....  together.  

 

 

 

13 minutes ago, Twist said:

 

I believe your friend Hiflier just posted a post today stating how essentially the preponderance of the evidence over-rides any one details that is off regarding the PGF.  I mirror this sentiment but in different words while still being skeptic.  Sorry if my opinions or beliefs in BF in general do not come off as sincere to you, fortunately for me,  I'm not looking for your acceptance on the subject.  

 

 

Isn't he your friend, too, Twist?? :)  

 

Strange, that you...a "fellow proponent"....would refer to him that way, rather than as "our friend".  You're sounding like a skeptic again, Twist. ;) 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Kit must have so much space in your head that even after all this time, all you can think about and relate to is Kit.  I've never denied being anything but a PGF skeptic, being able to argue points for and against the PGF really blows your mind doesn't it?   

Share this post


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

Kit must have so much space in your head that even after all this time, all you can think about and relate to is Kit.  I've never denied being anything but a PGF skeptic, being able to argue points for and against the PGF really blows your mind doesn't it?   

 

 

I used kitakaze's statement, to show how what you just said...has been said before, on the forum. I would have used any skeptics' statement....regardless of who said it.  It just so happens, that you and kit.....blow the same smoke, on this forum. 

 

Btw, do you find the 'contracting calf' on Patty more, or less "convincing" than the long foot on Patty?? :popcorn: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
Just now, SweatyYeti said:

 

 

I used kitakaze's statement, to show how what you just said...has been said before, on the forum. I would have used any skeptics' statement....regardless of who said it.  It just so happens, that you and kit.....blow the same smoke, on this forum. 

 

Btw, do you find the 'contracting calf' on Patty more, or less "convincing" than the long foot on Patty?? :popcorn: 

 

Do you see Kit everywhere you go?  Is he every guy that cuts you off in traffic? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

No.

 

Can you answer my questions...."fellow proponent"? :) 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
2 minutes ago, SweatyYeti said:

^

 

No.

 

Can you answer my questions...."fellow proponent"? :) 

 

 

 

I do not find the contracting calf convincing.  It does not weigh against the film, but I do not see enough there to say it weighs in favor of the film.   

Share this post


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

 

I do not find the contracting calf convincing.  It does not weigh against the film, but I do not see enough there to say it weighs in favor of the film.   

 

 

But yet, you find Patty's 'foot length' to be a "convincing" detail???   What makes her foot length appear so un-suitlike to you? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...