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

Huntster
2 hours ago, Old Time Lifter said:

.........to say that they've "lost" and "game over" is more than a stretch.......

 

But I can say that I'm not playing. It's their game, and I'm not interested in games anymore after looking into it and seeing the corruption.

I'm just interested for personal reasons, and I don't care if they ever know anything about these creatures. In fact, the longer they don't know and refuse to accept it, the better I like it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
2 hours ago, Old Time Lifter said:

 

As much as I might agree with you in that nobody has come up (even today) with anything as realistic as the body of Patty (tbh the face has always looked hokey to me and is the weak link imho) to say that they've "lost" and "game over" is more than a stretch.  It will never be game over, there always has been and always likely (unless somebody bags a body) will be disagreement

 

To brush off any and all of their points is no better than them brushing away all of yours.

 

This whole 'BF' thing is not going to be settled without a specimen to examine... be it captured alive or dead it doesn't matter.  No amount of video, footprints, audio recordings (which is the weakest evidence imho), or anything short of a body is going to settle this.

 

In the end, you can argue about Patty until you turn blue and it will not advance the recognition of BF one little bit.

 

 

You are putting the notion of "game over" into terms of mere 'talk', OTL. That's what I highlighted in your post....terms you used, like "disagreement"...."brushing away"...."argue".

 

But that is not where this battle is actually won, or lost. 

 

It is won, or lost...based on what people can show/demonstrate....(as opposed to what they can simply say). We do not need agreement from the skeptics, and scoftics….in order to declare a victory.

All we really need is their silence, regarding the scientific analysis....and we have plenty of that, these days. 

 

They don't go near the analysis. Game over....we proponents have won. :)  

  • Thanks 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Old Time Lifter
3 minutes ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

 

You are putting the notion of "game over" into terms of mere 'talk', OTL. That's what I highlighted in your post....terms you used, like "disagreement"...."brushing away"...."argue".

 

But that is not where this battle is actually won, or lost. 

 

It is won, or lost...based on what people can show/demonstrate....(as opposed to what they can simply say). We do not need agreement from the skeptics, and scoftics….in order to declare a victory.

All we really need is their silence, regarding the scientific analysis....and we have plenty of that, these days. 

 

They don't go near the analysis. Game over....we proponents have won. :)  

 

You can analyze the film six ways to Sunday and you haven't proven anything.  As much as you want the game to be over ultimately (IMHO) nothing has been proven just a whole lot of over thinking and over analysis. Neither side has won nor CAN either side "win" by the film or any film.  YOU NEED A BODY.

 

We're going to have to agree to disagree... as much as I might want to agree with you, I can't nor should I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, SweatyYeti said:

You are putting the notion of "game over" into terms of mere 'talk', OTL. That's what I highlighted in your post....terms you used, like "disagreement"...."brushing away"...."argue".

 

But that is not where this battle is actually won, or lost. 

 

It is won, or lost...based on what people can show/demonstrate....(as opposed to what they can simply say). We do not need agreement from the skeptics, and scoftics….in order to declare a victory.

All we really need is their silence........

 

Plussed because I would love to see current denialists get stuffed, and I love your focus, but in reality Paterson and Gimlin really did show and demonstrate enough to force the real win: forcing science as an industry (wildlife management agencies, academia, BIA, etc) to begin funding study into this species.

 

I once read an opinion on this forum about how unfortunate it was that our favorite Bigfoot cowboys surprised the wrong sasquatch on that Bluff Creek bar that October day in 1967. Those 15" footprints Patty left behind were repeatedly reported and cast in the area over the previous 9 years........along with some 16.5" prints, as well as some smaller ones. Had our cowboy movie producers shot the same footage of an 8' male with 65" shoulders, Dr. Grieve and esteemed associates would be forced to swallow their emotions and climb aboard the train. (Of course, the internet denialist wussies who are afraid of water pistols would have no such responsibilities, and they would be free to carry on with their silly bleating, but ignoring them would be much easier and sweeter with science forced to act)

Edited by Huntster
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, Old Time Lifter said:

 

You can analyze the film six ways to Sunday and you haven't proven anything.  As much as you want the game to be over ultimately (IMHO) nothing has been proven just a whole lot of over thinking and over analysis. Neither side has won nor CAN either side "win" by the film or any film.  YOU NEED A BODY.

 

We're going to have to agree to disagree... as much as I might want to agree with you, I can't nor should I.

 

I have shown features on Patty, which nobody can replicate via a man in a suit. 

 

Game over.  Proponents win.  :)  

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Plussed because I would love to see current denialists get stuffed, and I love your focus, but in reality Patterson and Gimlin really did show and demonstrate enough to force the real win: forcing science as an industry (wildlife management agencies, academia, BIA, etc) to begin funding study into this species.

 

Thanks, Hunster. :) 

 

Another way in which Roger and Bob won, was in forcing a skeptic/scoffer....kitakaze….some 50 years after they shot the footage.....to concoct this load of BS... 

 

Quote

"The proof of that hoax is not one thing, it is three. They are...


1) The suit. It exists. It was not destroyed. The reason it still exists is more vanity and pride than anything else.


2) The confessions. These exist as well. The confession comes actually in three to four parts. Four if I can make cooperation happen, three if I don't. All of them the sources of the PGF.


3) Proof of the hoax on the film itself, specifically the second reel. The first and second reel both exist fully intact and the person who had it hated the subject of Bigfoot, hated bigfooters, and wanted nothing to do with them. This in the end was to my greatest advantage.
What exactly I have found and what I have done and what I am doing now remain the subject of a documentary.


http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/7117-pattys-feetand-the-footprints/&page=40#comment-568938

 

 

March 14th, 2012...(in this post, kit gives us the full list of his discoveries)...


"The suit was the first, then came the confession work, then came original copies of the first and second reel. I'm still dealing with legal and contractual issues with all of them."


http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/7624-bob-heironimus-on-pax-tvs-lie-detector/&page=17#comment-571678

 

 

March 16th, 2012:


"That's simply far too sensitive a thing to answer on the Internet, Jodie. Sorry.
I can tell you that my documentary will feature at least three confessions."


http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/7624-bob-heironimus-on-pax-tvs-lie-detector/&page=20#comment-572289

 


Jan. 10th, 2015:


"Sweaty, I've only recorded one confession of the PGF hoax. I've spoken with four who have admitted it."

 

 

Link:

 

https://bigfootforums.com/topic/55573-the-three-confessions-claim/

 

Interestingly, at another time....kit elaborated on his "three confessions...which exist"...

 

Quote

- The most relevant people behind the film I have been in contact with are of course Heironimus, who was in the suit used. A number of witnesses who were present when Heironimus showed that suit to his close friends upon returning to Bluff Creek. An immediate family member of the owner of the suit. Philip and Amy Morris who sold Patterson a suit in August 1967, not one that I am convinced is shown in the PGF. I have never spoken personally with either Patricia Patterson or Bob Gimlin. I have for a number of years now tried organizing an interview with both Bob Gimlin and Bob Heironimus participating and in which neither have to confront each other directly.

 

 

Roger's one-of-a-kind film was the cause of that smoke-show, of kit's... :smoke: 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster

Kitakaze is an idiot. 

Share this post


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

Kitakaze is an idiot. 

 

Quite. ;)  

 

I added a little something to my post, above. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster

Kitakaze was a wide eyed, snotty nosed kid on this forum before he wandered over to JREF where they promptly used him like a wet rag on a diaper overflow on a public restroom floor. He went hog wild on every lawyeresque fabrication the satanic class could dream up. They had him chasing butterflies on Antarctica.

 

Poor kid.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Old Time Lifter
1 hour ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

I have shown features on Patty, which nobody can replicate via a man in a suit. 

 

Game over.  Proponents win.  :)  

 

0226_headache_lede_river.gif

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
Posted (edited)

5.jpg.66fc06dcbfd7fe15ca8be0c713eb15da.jpgA Bigfoot body will not prove 100% that Patty was/is real, just as the lack of a Bigfoot costume that even comes close proves that she is real.  However, with the lack of a body to compare her to (other than those described in other siting reports and the similarities that are seen in other footage), we are left considering the fact that costumes do not compare today and they never did.

 

“To brush off any and all of their points is no better than them brushing away all of yours.

 

That doesn't hold water in light of the fact that the 'points' made by PGf detractors are almost universally complete rubbish while many of the points made by PGf proponents are logically and scientifically valid.  We are talking about the difference between clinging to the notion that a 2-day film developing process would be impossible .vs. many good pro-PGf analyses such as the Munn's Report and these images (credit to SweatyYeti :)    

 

229744435_pgf-calfmuscleflex.gif.aefbe973b22c7b73214e9c12a573f2ac.gif5.jpg.66fc06dcbfd7fe15ca8be0c713eb15da.jpg

 

Edited by xspider1
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch
Posted (edited)

pattyleg.gif.6442704b52b6a311273c0ecac62789e6.gifgemoralegs.JPG.6ce6f7030b83b963a28003400d5d56eb.JPG

 

Left: Patty                                                                             Right: Gemora gorilla legs (PRE-PGF)

 

(arms and hands hanging roughly the same length/level)

 

(similarly 'high' crotch area)

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

Lmao,kitikaze still owns so much space in sweaty yetis head after all these years I bet SY still believes Kit is the guy that cuts him off in traffic each day. 😂

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, xspider1 said:

A Bigfoot body will not prove 100% that Patty was/is real, just as the lack of a Bigfoot costume that even comes close proves that she is real.  However, with the lack of a body to compare her to (other than those described in other siting reports and the similarities that are seen in other footage), we are left considering the fact that costumes do not compare today and they never did.

 

 

 

There is the potential for a Bigfoot body to prove....(definitively, and beyond all reasonable doubt)....that the PGF subject was a real, live Sasquatch, xspider….and that would be due to the 'arm proportion' skeletal detail...

 

Patty-Arm-Bending-AG10.gif

 

 

Matt Crowley giving it a shot....(coming up a bit short, with the upper-arm)...

 

F362-Matt-Arm-Comp1.jpg

 

 

If a Sasquatch specimen turns out to have the same 'arm proportion' as the PGF subject, then....logically, the PGF shows a Sasquatch creature. 

 

It would be beyond the realm of a 'purely random coincidence' for the PGF subject to exhibit such an in-human 'arm proportion'....(via some "film illusion")....and then, for that "illusion" to just happen to match the 'arm proportion' of a Sasquatch specimen. 

 

 

 

Quote

“To brush off any and all of their points is no better than them brushing away all of yours.

 

That doesn't hold water in light of the fact that the 'points' made by PGf detractors are almost universally complete rubbish while many of the points made by PGf proponents are logically and scientifically valid.  We are talking about the difference between clinging to the notion that a 2-day film developing process would be impossible .vs. many good pro-PGf analyses such as the Munn's Report and these images (credit to SweatyYeti :)    

 

229744435_pgf-calfmuscleflex.gif.aefbe973b22c7b73214e9c12a573f2ac.gif5.jpg.66fc06dcbfd7fe15ca8be0c713eb15da.jpg

 

 

Thanks for the credit on the images, xspider. :)  

 

I should point-out, though, that the 'contracting/bulging' calf muscle detail had been noticed before I started doing my analysis of the film. I can't take credit for discovering that particular detail. 

 

That detail, alone, virtually proves the subject is a real, live creature.....since no such massive, bulging piece of padding has ever been seen on a 'monkey suit'. 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


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

Kitakaze was a wide eyed, snotty nosed kid on this forum before he wandered over to JREF where they promptly used him like a wet rag on a diaper overflow on a public restroom floor. He went hog wild on every lawyeresque fabrication the satanic class could dream up. They had him chasing butterflies on Antarctica.

 

Poor kid......…

 

My take on kita-KABOOM-ze…..he is a psychologically troubled individual. 

 

No normal, well-adjusted person would take such delight in playing word games with others, on an internet discussison board.....and, delight in inflaming others, also.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...