Merged Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
William Parcher said:
It would only work until the juice was removed. The stench is not on the hairs - the stench is the hairs. Besides that frontiersmen didn't carry tomato juice.
Click to expand...

They could have had it in their wagon back at base camp. Just a short horse ride away...about an even 2 miles by road and a little shorter across the hill...
 
Last edited:
Correa Neto said:
Hey, how can Munns actually know those are boobs?

Its an unknown species. Those things could as well be vocal sacs and Patty a male bigfoot. Can't say they are not, because its an unknown species!

Hey, bigfoots could be closer to howler monkeys than to orang-utangs and humans, convergent evolution is powerful. Can't say its not, because its an unknown species!

They could also be marsupials! Convergent evolution created marsupials that looked very like placentary mammals. Can't say its not, because its an unknown species!

Hey, you can't even say its not a suit, because you don't have Patty...
Click to expand...

Patty evolved to wear a suit.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
You would have done better to have used this for your example:

[qimg]http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m532/abitofmystuff/wow2_zps6f520f22.jpg[/qimg]

Really Chris, are you in such a state of denial that you can't look at these images and admit there might be a problem with Patty's anatomy ?

[qimg]http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m532/abitofmystuff/donuts2_zpsef0989eb.gif[/qimg]

That is a great site where your image came from..

A lot of good information about how muscles look and work..

[qimg]http://i1130.photobucket.com/albums/m532/abitofmystuff/muscles_zps46e4a1ec.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

I love that Michelin man!

So your position is that Patty's muscles should match those of a human exactly? Who's in denial?

It is a great site. I would think it would be best used only for comparative study of muscles of humans though.

Another reason I don't have a problem with the muscle structure shown on Patty's arm and back. We don't have a Bigfoot subject on file to compare it with.

If Patty is real, she's not human, not really a gorilla, so on what can we base our comparison? Patty may be similar to a human but can we say her muscle structure will look and perform exactly the same as a human? No way.

The same can be said about the gorilla. (actually she looks closer to the gorilla than human so a more likely comparison would be those of gorilla muscle structures IMO) But, even if we compare Patty or any bigfoot with the gorilla's muscle structure, Will it match exactly? No, it likely will not be an exact match, similar maybe but not exact.
 
The Shrike said:
Why are 'footers suddenly tossing around Cross River gorillas as somehow relevant for bigfoot? One of my grad students studied them in the field. It's cool that they're the northwesternmost occurrence of gorillas, but I don't see what people think is crypto about them. My student said they found them quite easily in the forest. Like all gorillas, their main problem is that people find them easily.
Click to expand...

Did you believe your student when he told you he had studied them in the field?

Or did you demand physical evidence, proof, mental screenings etc?
 
Chris, do you really not understand the difference between taking someone's word that they studied gorillas in the field, vs someone who claims they studied unicorns?


ChrisBFRPKY said:
I love that Michelin man!

So your position is that Patty's muscles should match those of a human exactly? Who's in denial?
......................
Click to expand...

Are you saying Munns' comparison to human anatomy is invalid, then ?
 
Last edited:
Interesting. ChrisBFRPKY, do you think that gorillas and bigfoot require the same standard of proof? Do you think they're on the same level?
 
^So rather than acknowledge your error in the comparison, you're doubling-down on Cross River gorillas as some kind of cryptid?
 
Gilbert Syndrome said:
What's sad, & telling, is that Footers find it easy to see boob-jiggle & mouth movement, but the obvious diaper eludes them.
Click to expand...

I think the two frames used to discuss the "boob jiggle" also go a long way to show there is no "diaper".

As far as mouth movement I don't think those frames are of enough quality to see anything that minor in detail. (for me anyway)
 
Well, we know Patty's foot structure is weird, right?

And we know Patty's skeletal structure, right?

And we know Patty walks in "funky chicken" mode, right?

I'm sure I saw all of this on a bigfoot documentary with a respected professor.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
Chris, do you really not understand the difference between taking someone's word that they studied gorillas in the field, vs someone who claims they studied unicorns?




Are you saying Munns' comparison to human anatomy is invalid, then ?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that fluid movement of soft structures (via viewing the effects of a shockwave) is alot more reasonable than exact matches of muscle shapes/placement on two separate species.
 
The Shrike said:
^So rather than acknowledge your error in the comparison, you're doubling-down on Cross River gorillas as some kind of cryptid?
Click to expand...

For whatever reason, the Cross River Gorilla was not put on video until 2009, even though the locals reported sightings.

But there are always new creatures being discovered, new primates to this day. You don't like the Cross River Gorillas, ok how about the snub nosed monkey. Creepy looking little rascal but relatively new to science.

To sit back and say "We have already discovered everything that's out there" is kinda irresponsible. There's no way to know that.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
To sit back and say "We have already discovered everything that's out there" is kinda irresponsible. There's no way to know that.
Click to expand...

Nobody has said that. All I ask is proof of the existence of bigfoots, not a film of a guy in a suit, silly recordings, fake plaster casts and campfire stories.
 
Vortigern99 said:
The Cross River gorilla is a subspecies of the western gorilla. It was first recognized by primatologists as morphologically distinct in 1998. Before that it was assumed, absent any specimen or close analysis, that it was a western gorilla. Once it was determined that behavioral differences were present as well, scientists looked more closely and determined it was a subspecies.

There's a very clear picture of a dead one dated to 1906.

The differences between this case and bigfoot should be obvious, first among these being that no morphology or behavior has been observed by any scientist anywhere.
Click to expand...

ChrisBFRPKY said:
For whatever reason, the Cross River Gorilla was not put on video until 2009, even though the locals reported sightings.

But there are always new creatures being discovered, new primates to this day. You don't like the Cross River Gorillas, ok how about the snub nosed monkey. Creepy looking little rascal but relatively new to science.

To sit back and say "We have already discovered everything that's out there" is kinda irresponsible. There's no way to know that.
Click to expand...

Wow, it's as if I never said anything. Do you have me on ignore?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom