Jump to content
masterbarber

The realism of the Patterson-Gimlin Film subject cannot be replicated with a costume so; what are the possibilities? (2)

Recommended Posts

norseman
BFF Donor

I have no idea...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daniel Perez

To argue with a fool is to be a fool.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

That's why I have a bunch of them on Ignore. :) 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin
On 3/8/2019 at 2:34 PM, Huntster said:

 

Paul du Chaillu brought the first gorilla carcass out of Africa for science, and he was regarded with derision and disbelief.........that’s right; even a carcass wasn’t enough for many.

 

And it wasn’t against the law to shoot animals that didn’t exist back then. Today it is.

That is an excellent point, but with the extensive awareness of this particular subject, I think a body would satisfy most of us who doubt the creatures existence .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
4 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

.........I think a body would satisfy most of us who doubt the creatures existence .

 

A carcass would prove the creatures existence, and that would be regardless of the deniers dying protestations, final arguments, and angry demands for the punishment of the murderer who killed the creature and ended their silly games.  

 

Paul du Chaillu didn't strike out into the sub-Saharan jungles to prove the existence of gorillas. He was an overall adventurer. In addition to his experience with gorillas, he described tribes of pygmies and natural wonders that were also laughed at and condemned. The main difference between him and a capable 21st Century backpacker in the PNW was his employ of local indigenous packers/guides, his firepower, and his willingness and ability to kill a gorilla and bring it back.

 

I used to believe that a du Chaillu approach was due and needed. Not any more. I have come to believe that both God and government are protecting these "creatures" (people, really) from Man. I'm good with that. If I'm truly blessed, I'll get a glimpse of one. If not, that's okay. I never saw a tiger in the wild, either, but like the PG film, I saw them on TV.........

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

A carcass would prove the creatures existence, and that would be regardless of the deniers dying protestations, final arguments, and angry demands for the punishment of the murderer who killed the creature and ended their silly games.  

 

Paul du Chaillu didn't strike out into the sub-Saharan jungles to prove the existence of gorillas. He was an overall adventurer. In addition to his experience with gorillas, he described tribes of pygmies and natural wonders that were also laughed at and condemned. The main difference between him and a capable 21st Century backpacker in the PNW was his employ of local indigenous packers/guides, his firepower, and his willingness and ability to kill a gorilla and bring it back.

 

I used to believe that a du Chaillu approach was due and needed. Not any more. I have come to believe that both God and government are protecting these "creatures" (people, really) from Man. I'm good with that. If I'm truly blessed, I'll get a glimpse of one. If not, that's okay. I never saw a tiger in the wild, either, but like the PG film, I saw them on TV.........

 

 

I wish I agreed with this position, but I do not. Although I can respect it.

 

I think people have the right to know whats out there. And if the government is covering it up? All the more reason to expose it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
1 hour ago, norseman said:

........I think people have the right to know whats out there........

 

But I do know what's out there. Everybody else? They need to educate themselves.

 

.........

And if the government is covering it up? All the more reason to expose it.

 

Well, I can't argue with that.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
BFF Donor
1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

But I do know what's out there. Everybody else? They need to educate themselves.

 

 

What about womenfolk and kids?

 

If the men in their lives tell em its all nonsense?

 

I would love to think its some sort of benevolent forest giant.... What I know of the wilderness makes me inclined to believe otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
31 minutes ago, norseman said:

What about womenfolk and kids?........

 

No sympathy for them from me. They aren't immune from the need to educate themselves, and kids should be under 100% adult supervision, anyway. The dangers include snakes, bears, lions, boars, falls, moving water, criminals, etc. Women? As a segment od society, they're the primary attackers of our Second Amendment rights. If it was up to most women, you and I would have to defend ourselves from sasquatches (and everything else) with a thick, green willow switch. Alaska is full of hippie-ish females frolicking about in grizzly country unarmed simply because they don't want to be seen with one of those horrid guns strapped to their hip. "Does this holstered gun make my a$$ look fat?"

 

But I can actually see a huge benefit to proving that sasquatches exist.........and they like to kidnap and raoe women: the woods would be devoid of them.

 

........

If the men in their lives tell em its all nonsense.........

 

That's already happening. Big time. In fact, I remember a wise man pointed out to me that a woman would believe a stranger over her husband most of the time, anyway, because her husband is always BSing her, and "he's so cynical".

 

.........I would love to think its some sort of benevolent forest giant.... What I know of the wilderness makes me inclined to believe otherwise.

 

I think they're less dangerous than lions, snakes, steep drops, moving water, and malevolent people.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

^^ There is so much wrong with this post best to just let it rot like the heap it is.  🤣🤣

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor
15 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

A carcass would prove the creatures existence, 

 

 

 

Grover Kranz said something to the effect of "The first one who kills a Sasquatch will get a medal the second on to do it will get the electric chair."

 

If Gimlin is to be believed, his nature ethic would not allow him to shoot something which wasn't attacking him.

 

We can say if Bigfoot exists it would be rated as a near extinct animal.  It would be sad to kill any near extinct animal.  As bad as that would be, I can understand why 'science' needs a body.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
3 hours ago, Backdoc said:

.........We can say if Bigfoot exists it would be rated as a near extinct animal.  It would be sad to kill any near extinct animal.  As bad as that would be, I can understand why 'science' needs a body.

 

I also understand why science needs a carcass, but that's their problem, not mine.

 

I have also come to believe that these creatures are hominins, and thus are a human species. Killing one would be killing a near extinct human species, and would definitively be homicide. I believe it would be very feasible to criminally prosecute the person who did such a thing, and if the evidence was not strong that he did so defensively, he could be in serious legal trouble. Moreover, I believe that government is more than capable to take control of the carcass, academia very capable of playing their own ideological games with it, and both very cheerful to legally, morally, and ideologically prosecute the killer. 

 

And since I have no real need to kill one, I think I'll oblige science to do their own killing, or one of y'all to do it. I'll watch to see what happens..........

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch
15 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

No sympathy for them from me. They aren't immune from the need to educate themselves, and kids should be under 100% adult supervision, anyway. The dangers include snakes, bears, lions, boars, falls, moving water, criminals, etc. Women? As a segment od society, they're the primary attackers of our Second Amendment rights. If it was up to most women, you and I would have to defend ourselves from sasquatches (and everything else) with a thick, green willow switch. Alaska is full of hippie-ish females frolicking about in grizzly country unarmed simply because they don't want to be seen with one of those horrid guns strapped to their hip. "Does this holstered gun make my a$$ look fat?"

 

But I can actually see a huge benefit to proving that sasquatches exist.........and they like to kidnap and raoe women: the woods would be devoid of them.

 

 

 

 

That's already happening. Big time. In fact, I remember a wise man pointed out to me that a woman would believe a stranger over her husband most of the time, anyway, because her husband is always BSing her, and "he's so cynical".

 

 

 

I think they're less dangerous than lions, snakes, steep drops, moving water, and malevolent people.

 

This is the singlemost ignorant and offensive post I have ever read on this website.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor
1 hour ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

 

This is the singlemost ignorant and offensive post I have ever read on this website.

 

Oh, I can bet that one at the drop of a hat.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
3 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

I also understand why science needs a carcass, but that's their problem, not mine.

 

I have also come to believe that these creatures are hominins, and thus are a human species. Killing one would be killing a near extinct human species, and would definitively be homicide. I believe it would be very feasible to criminally prosecute the person who did such a thing, and if the evidence was not strong that he did so defensively, he could be in serious legal trouble. Moreover, I believe that government is more than capable to take control of the carcass, academia very capable of playing their own ideological games with it, and both very cheerful to legally, morally, and ideologically prosecute the killer. 

 

And since I have no real need to kill one, I think I'll oblige science to do their own killing, or one of y'all to do it. I'll watch to see what happens..........

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well said, Huntster. :) 

 

We don't need to kill a Sasquatch, in order to provide a specimen for good ol' Mr. Scientist...(who can't seem to understand simple scientific analyses).  A creature can be shot with a tranquilizer dart, just as well as with a bullet.  

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×