Jump to content
Squatchy McSquatch

What Sparked Your Interest in the PGF?

Recommended Posts

Cotter
16 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

 

Sorry about your sighting. I saw it on YT/Finding Bigfoot at some point. Nice story bro...

 

My interest lies in the PGF. I've made that abundantly clear.

 

I'm not home-schooled, I don't believe your sighting to be accurate, and I choose a different viewpoint on BF. We cannot have any have any sort of dialogue because I would have to mollify your beliefs -- as whole -- with the general overall absence in the very Creature you Stand for. 

 

And you'll tell me to look at muh Evidence and we can go ;round and 'round again.

 

Here's how the BF community treated the 'G' in the 'PGF' on its 50th anniversary. Disgraceful...

 

 

Nathan you can't separate the PGF from Bigfoot, and there's no Bigfoot to be found.

 

I appreciate what Roger Patterson did. I don't bleeve it and I don't have to. It still happened and it was an awesome occurrence. It was a work. It was kayfabe. Carny talk. Rog was a Carny.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

^^A lot of belief in there......hmmmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NathanFooter
On 4/30/2018 at 9:20 PM, Squatchy McSquatch said:

 

 

Nate I'm going to show you two supposed images of BF. How do they relate to what you saw and what we see in the PGF?

 

 [images removed]

 

 

[done purely for anatomical comparisons between male/female sasquatch reproductive organs]

 

 I will say that neither of these are muscular enough ( lean/sculpted ) in build to fairly represent the male I saw in 09. 

 

 I will also say that Patty looks like a middle aged female Sasquatch between 28% - 35% body fat. 

 

 The male did have genitals but they where not clearly highlighted, needless to say there was hair and my concern was more on the head and shoulders area. 

 

 The below images are fairly close to what I saw in 09, the drawing was done when I was 18 and my artistic skills may be in question.   The image of the creature in the snow needs more " stuff " to accurately match.   

 

 This really leaves anyone with only three options.    I am insane, I am being deceptive of the entire event or I saw a living thing not yet recognized in biology.    Believe what ever fits the fancy. 

 

 Belief is weak and is born most often from the lack of something in the human experience. 

 Believing and knowing are only separated by the scientific method coming to a point of positive conclusion.   I have evaluated my 2009 sighting, the circumstances and all of the other events that took place.

 

 I have come to a conclusion, now I am out there looking for the evidence to back it up. 

 

SnowSquatch..JPG

09male.JPG

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton
17 hours ago, hiflier said:

No one is going to believe this except someone who knows how I operate when I truly think something is significant. I wrote to Dr. Jane Goodall  explaining the issue a couple of days go. 'Nuff said. I did that because after I don't know how many months, and Dr. Krantz' 20+ years, I just think this gets shoved under the rug because I get the impression that even though people agree no one seems to be treating it as being as important as arm or leg indexing. I never saw Kitikaze bring it up once. Nor anyone else really for that matter. It may be just me but I think the shoulder span issue is MORE important than the other body indexes. It is for sure not less. And with that I will bring it up no more on any thread, even the ones I had begun just for discussing the subject.

 

hiflier,

 

Just a guess, but she may be familiar with the shoulder width you mention, it's been mentioned a lot longer than 20+ years. 

 

I don't have a first edition of John's: On The Track of Sasquatch, mines a 4th edition printed in '71, the original I believe was printed in 1968. In mine, John mentions "A particular problem with the "fur suit" explanation is the fact that the shoulder joints are about a foot farther apart than those of any man who could be found to found to wear the suit, yet the thing is able to swing its arms widely and with complete freedom, without any padding being obvious." 

 

Pat...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowBorn
Quote

I agree to some extent but there are a lot of variations in humans of relative proportions of arms and legs especially.    Now and then you see a human with proportions well outside the norm.     Leg length in proportion to body length is the most obvious in humans.    Short people tend to have short legs.   When we do get modern video we can compare proportions of that subject with Patty.     WIth both a face to face encounter or a video with an adult bigfoot, especially a female BF,  the first thing I would do are all imaginable comparisons.   While some might be reasonably accurate,  I do not give a whole lot of trust to all the artist interpretations of witnesses that are floating around.   We see from illustrations of wanted humans,  while there may be some resemblance,  often times they are not very accurate.    Unless someone has daily interactions with BF, I suspect most artist renderings are influenced by other ones the artist has seen.

How about using Andre The Giant to compare with as far as muscle and all. What I saw does not compare to Patty and was not fat like that. But trim and lean and looked like it could do some damage if it wanted to. What the others seen in the brush was squatting  but still was big squatting down. The one I seen through the starlight scope  looked muscular and was about the same height as me which I am 5' 11" tall and it was crouched over so it could have been taller if it stood straight up.

 

Cotter could be right in calling it out as kayfabe but this would mean that others would be lying as well in order to play this ruse out for this long. It is either they saw some thing that is real or this is one giant hoax that has been played on the parties involved. One just has to decide either way. In my opinion I am saying that this creature could be real and that this is what had me searching for the truth. The muscles and the way it walks has me convince that it is real what does not have me convince is it's a** and how it sags which makes me believe that it might be attached to one of those tree saddles.. if it was not for that I would say that it was real. You would figure that a creature on two legs doing all that climbing on mountains and hills would have a tight a**.

Share this post


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

 

 I will say that neither of these are muscular enough ( lean/sculpted ) in build to fairly represent the male I saw in 09. 

 

 I will also say that Patty looks like a middle aged female Sasquatch between 28% - 35% body fat. 

 

 The male did have genitals but they where not clearly highlighted, needless to say there was hair and my concern was more on the head and shoulders area. 

 

 The below images are fairly close to what I saw in 09, the drawing was done when I was 18 and my artistic skills may be in question.   The image of the creature in the snow needs more " stuff " to accurately match.   

 

 This really leaves anyone with only three options.    I am insane, I am being deceptive of the entire event or I saw a living thing not yet recognized in biology.    Believe what ever fits the fancy. 

 

 Belief is weak and is born most often from the lack of something in the human experience. 

 Believing and knowing are only separated by the scientific method coming to a point of positive conclusion.   I have evaluated my 2009 sighting, the circumstances and all of the other events that took place.

 

 I have come to a conclusion, now I am out there looking for the evidence to back it up. 

 

SnowSquatch..JPG

09male.JPG

Thank you very much for sharing. 

An excellent post and observations. 

You said the Patterson subject appeared to be a middle aged female. 

Based on your observations, what do you think is the standing height of the Patterson film subject ?

Also wanted to acknowledge your efforts and due diligence for your research. 

Edited by Patterson-Gimlin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
44 minutes ago, ShadowBorn said:

How about using Andre The Giant to compare with as far as muscle and all. What I saw does not compare to Patty and was not fat like that. But trim and lean and looked like it could do some damage if it wanted to. What the others seen in the brush was squatting  but still was big squatting down. The one I seen through the starlight scope  looked muscular and was about the same height as me which I am 5' 11" tall and it was crouched over so it could have been taller if it stood straight up.

 

Cotter could be right in calling it out as kayfabe but this would mean that others would be lying as well in order to play this ruse out for this long. It is either they saw some thing that is real or this is one giant hoax that has been played on the parties involved. One just has to decide either way. In my opinion I am saying that this creature could be real and that this is what had me searching for the truth. The muscles and the way it walks has me convince that it is real what does not have me convince is it's a** and how it sags which makes me believe that it might be attached to one of those tree saddles.. if it was not for that I would say that it was real. You would figure that a creature on two legs doing all that climbing on mountains and hills would have a tight a**.

 

SB,  I do not recall,  what time of year did your sighting take place?  Could any of the “sag” be from winter hair/fur growth???   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowBorn

Twist

The sag I am talking about is on Patty and her a** and it just looks so weird that it almost looks like it's on of those tree saddle with fur. A tree saddle that is holding everything on the bottom half her body, But I cannot explain that makes me believe on how real that patty is real is the muscle tissue on her legs and that is some thing that I cannot explain. This is where I have issues with and this where I can not come up with a way to explain on how it can be made up as a hoax. Those muscles look just too real and a human do not have muscles like those. Andre the Giant does not and either does the Big show on wrestling and these are guys that fit the size of patty and should show how muscle should look like on big people should look like when they walk . This creature looks like it has been through some rough forest and you can see it in it's legs and those legs look like they are tight in muscles.  I do not think that Bob could fit into those legs of this creature or even walk the way that this creature is walking.  My sightings took placed in the fall during bow season up north up in Foley swamp. Back in 2000.

Share this post


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

 

 

This point never gets the attention it deserves.   It seems some elaborate fudging of images is needed to fit a person into a suit which would have Patty's pivot points.  We then hear long shot things (that still don't work) like hand extensions and sticks to extend the arm.  When that doesn't work we hear about how the blur of the image makes it too hard to work out as a problem. The crinkle up the paper and throw the math problem in the trash while declaring, "We tried".   

 

 

Thanks, Backdoc. :)  Naturally, I agree....it hasn't gotten the attention/response it deserves. Those 2 particular film frames are 'killer', to the 'hoax' scenario.  

 

The reason why those 2....non-consecutive....frames are so significant, in showing Patty's true 'arm proportion'...is because Patty's upper-arm is in exactly the same position alongside the upper-torso, in the 2 frames...

 

F347-F360-ArmBend-Bob-AG2.gif

 

 

That is not the case, with F362, and either one of it's neighboring frames...

 

F360_F362_Elbow_Location.jpg

 

 

In the previous frame, the upper-arm is in a different position....(the arm is swinging forward, very quickly...due to the hard landing of the right foot).....and hence, a 2-frame animation using frames F361 and F362 doesn't show such a well-defined 'bend point', for the elbow.

 

 

To illustrate how well-defined the location of Patty's elbow-joint is on her arm....(and positioned vertically, along her body)....in the animation above.....here is the animation chopped in half....showing first just the upper-arm, in exactly the same position, relative to the body...

 

F347-_F360-_Arm_Bend_AG1_Upper_Half1.gif

 

...and then the lower-half...showing the lower-arm in a very different position...

 

F347-_F360-_Arm_Bend_AG1_Lower_Half1.gif

 

 

The dividing point...is Patty's elbow location....period.  The visible length of Patty's lower-arm is clearly, and most definitively....not the result of a person with an extended lower-arm.

 

 

SWW wrote:

Quote

I agree to some extent but there are a lot of variations in humans of relative proportions of arms and legs especially.    Now and then you see a human with proportions well outside the norm.  

 

 

None that would match-up with Patty, SWW.  :) 

 

An 'average human's' lower-arm is longer than Patty's.....and a human-with-extended lower-arm.....is even longer, with an even greater differential.  

 

You could search the world over, and you would never find any human being whose 'arm length', and proportion....(with or without extensions)....matches that of Patty's.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot

^^

Sweaty, could at least a partial reason for the lack of attention and response to all of your work you've shown on here on the arms is that no one has yet been able to credibly refute it and point out your where you're wrong on something? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

SwettyYeti:    "You could search the world over, and you would never find any human being whose 'arm length', and proportion....(with or without extensions)....matches that of Patty's."     While that may be true for length of limbs because of Patties presumed large size,  that sort of absolute statement about proportion or anything else is usually not correct.   There are all sorts of genetic disorders that produce all sorts of abnormality in humans.  With 7.6 billion humans there is a lot of chance for abnormality.   Anyone ever wonder where all of these tall Chinese NBA players come from when the general population is much smaller.     And to throw gas on the fire,  for all we know Patty is not normal for a BF.  What would that do for this conjecture?  

 

Edited by SWWASAS
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowBorn

 

Quote

Anyone ever wonder where all of these tall Chinese NBA players come from when the general population is much smaller.     And to throw gas on the fire,  for all we know Patty is not normal for a BF.  What would that do for this conjecture?  

Well I am going with genetics, since could be the most likely cause to why they could be so tall. Some where in their genes it was determined that they should become tall. Patty should be the same if it fits with in our level of  genetics as far as primates go. Yes you are since not Bigfoots are the same and can be different in different parts depending on where they may be found. This quote I pasted of google under genetics: 

"About 60 to 80 percent of the difference in height between individuals is determined by genetic factors, whereas 20 to 40 percent can be attributed to environmental effects, mainly nutrition."

So if this is true then genes do play a large factor in how patty is made up as far as an individual goes. Her arms and legs and her entire make up can all be determined by her genetics. She is a living flesh and blood creature that has DNA yet to be determined. There is no way that this creature could be a human in a suite just by what we are seeing on that film and comparing it to Bob H.. Those are true muscle at work and shows a creature that has been out in the forest surviving, I am no expert and I do not claim to be but I do understand what it takes to walk through forest and hills and mountains and have experience this in Mexico and in Michigan and other parts of the US. I have felt the soreness of going through these experience. This is one bad a** creature.

Share this post


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

Thank you very much for sharing. 

An excellent post and observations. 

You said the Patterson subject appeared to be a middle aged female. 

Based on your observations, what do you think is the standing height of the Patterson film subject ?

Also wanted to acknowledge your efforts and due diligence for your research. 

 

 I have not researched Patty much, I have read just a little here and there on her estimates on both sides of the debate.

 

 If I where to guess from the information I have gone through, I would say 6 feet 6 inches in height. 

 

 Her age assessment is only based on her over all build shape and fullness of her features, admittedly I am humanizing here. 

Edited by NathanFooter
sentence structure change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

Thank you for responding. Much appreciated. You are most kind 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
10 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

^^

Sweaty, could at least a partial reason for the lack of attention and response to all of your work you've shown on here on the arms is that no one has yet been able to credibly refute it and point out your where you're wrong on something? 

 

 

Well, Okie....I have to say.....it's got me baffled. :) 

 

With regards to the lack of responses by the skeptics/scoffers....what you proposed is the reason why.

 

They can't deal with it.  :beach: 

 

So they pretend the elephant/Sasquatch is not in the room.

 

But, I have no idea why these details I've been pointing-out....(which have been numerous, and are all indicative of real anatomy)....have been getting virtually no response from the proponents. It's as if the proponents on the forum have gone 'blind' to the pro-Bigfoot Patty analysis....and, in place of that.....simply await eagerly for Squatchy's next piece of     post.  

 

But, regardless....this isn't really a problem, for me.  The most important thing, to me....is to continue doing my analysis of the film subject.....and continue building on what I have already done/accomplished.  

I will also be having my findings published on other websites....i.e...the Crypto Blogs. I also plan on creating my own PGF Report website....similar to Bill's, and MK Davis' sites. 

 

There is a very big world, out there....beyond the BFF/Little Jref Forum.  :) 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


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

SwettyYeti:    "You could search the world over, and you would never find any human being whose 'arm length', and proportion....(with or without extensions)....matches that of Patty's."    

 

While that may be true for length of limbs because of Patties presumed large size,  that sort of absolute statement about proportion or anything else is usually not correct.  

 

 

There is absolutely no chance, whatsoever, that a human could match-up with the shoulder, elbow, wrist, and finger joints on Patty....all of which can be clearly seen articulating. 

 

I have looked at many examples of exceptionally tall people, and people with exceptionally long arms....and one aspect of these exceptional people that I have noticed....is their 'arm proportion' is always "weighted" towards the lower-arm.  The 'lower arm' is always longer than the upper-arm. Add a 'hand extension' to the human arm....and the resulting proportion is even less Patty-like. The differential becomes greater. 

 

Sorry, SWW...but there is simply ZERO chance of a human arm matching Patty's arm. 

 

 

Quote

There are all sorts of genetic disorders that produce all sorts of abnormality in humans.  With 7.6 billion humans there is a lot of chance for abnormality.   Anyone ever wonder where all of these tall Chinese NBA players come from when the general population is much smaller.  

 

So, not only was the subject of the film an "unidentified man in a suit"......it is now an "unidentified freak-of-nature man in a suit"???  :wacko:

 

It is amazing the lengths people will go to avoid the simpler explanation.....a real, live creature. 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...