Merged Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 4

[STRONG LIKE BEAR]

Wow, it's as if I never said anything. Do you have me on ignore?

He has you on "subconscious" ignore, as all Bigfooters do when exposed to information that conflicts with their way of thinking at the time. For example...

Chris, how does Bigfoot exist in modern Kentucky, Ohio, and Illinois.. at least since the days of Daniel Boone without even ONE specimen, or PIECE of specimen being brought forth in some fashion?

 

[Night Walker]

Thanks for the cogent summary.

Context is king. It took me all of 30 minutes to look that up...

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.

Not "for whatever reason" - the very specific reason that the politically unstable region was off-limits until 1999.

Same as the situation with the snub-nosed monkey (Rhinopithecus strykeri) discovered in 2010 in Myanmar (Burma) - since independence in 1948, the country has been in one of the longest running civil wars among the country's myriad ethnic groups that remains unresolved. From 1962 to 2011, the country was under military rule. The military junta was officially dissolved in 2011 following a general election in 2010 and a nominally civilian government installed, though the military retains enormous influence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma

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

If you have so readily misinterpreted the skeptical position on this then are you open-minded enough to question whether you may have similarly misinterpreted your Bigfoot sighting(s)?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Interesting. ChrisBFRPKY, do you think that gorillas and bigfoot require the same standard of proof? Do you think they're on the same level?

I just think it's kinda funny how someone can view a black and white photo on Wiki supposedly taken in 1906 of a dead Cross River Gorilla and accept it as fact.

Yet those same folks will scoff at a similar photo if it was supposedly Bigfoot.

I understand the argument that the Gorilla has already been proven to exist, so a subspecies was always possible. But the standard of proof does seem to differ.

I will admit though, a body should be on file to document any new species discovery.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

If the locals have been seeing and hunting and eating an animal all along, how is it "undiscovered" or "unknown"?

Actually I think it was reported that the locals did not eat these gorillas. They viewed them as "hairy people".

Local witnesses seems to be accepted and work fine for gorillas but not for bigfoot....

 

[Vortigern99]

I just think it's kinda funny how someone can view a black and white photo on Wiki supposedly taken in 1906 of a dead Cross River Gorilla and accept it as fact.

This is because you have no background in, or understanding of, primate physiology. Subtle, millimetric differences in facial and somatic features can and do determine which species a given animal belongs to. All that's required is 1) knowledge and 2) close analysis of existing data.

Yet those same folks will scoff at a similar photo if it was supposedly Bigfoot.

There are exactly zero pictures of bigfoot, or of any animal purported to be bigfoot, that are as clear and evidential as the 1906 picture under discussion.

You haven't seen the photo, have you?

I understand the argument that the Gorilla has already been proven to exist, so a subspecies was always possible. But the standard of proof does seem to differ.

I will admit though, a body should be on file to document any new species discovery.

The standard of proof does not differ. You're mistaken.

You're also missing the larger point, which is that the Cross River gorilla was already known to exist. It was observed and studied by western science as early as 1904. It simply was not given its own subspecies until behavioral differences led some researchers to speculate, "Hmmm, I wonder if maybe this is a distinct subspecies?"

Equating the ascription of a new taxonomic classification to an animal already known and studied is not the same as "discovering" an entirely new, never-before-studied animal. I'm not sure which logical fallacy that is, but it's a huge one.

 

[Resume]

Local witnesses seems to be accepted and work fine for gorillas but not for bigfoot....

Because there is no corresponding biological entity to corroborate bigfoot witnesses. Which is problematic given the resource extraction/exploitation in the alleged habitat of this alleged cryptid.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Then you are not acknowledging objective facts.



Oh I see it all right. The problem is, that I(along with the other 99.9% of the world) realize just how limited the film is in terms of what can be definitively stated about it. You are saying the breasts move, when only TWO frames can be provided to support this. How many milliseconds is that?



Munns does not give the numbers in his Bigfoot conference presentation, that I saw. What are they? That doesn't matter anyway, because the models breasts move differently than the movement that you and Munns perceive as genuine on Patty. Also his models are facing the camera, whereas Patty is to the side looking back at the camera. That's another part of why this issue is meaningless, because we don't get a good full view of both of them. The left breast is slightly obscured. Greg feels that it is the left breast, and only the left breast that moves.

Like kitakaze said a few posts ago.. Rorschach Patty.



Munns "mask" presentation is almost certainly useless as well, if he is still playing his game with the literal old-timey football helmet.

Some claim there is no movement in the frames. I can see it. I can also see the skin stretch on Patty's side.The film isn't that long. It's no surprise Bill picked those 2 frames to base his comparison. (you do understand there are those that claim they see no movement whatsoever or only one breast move right?)

If it is not worthy enough to you to answer the question of movement, that's perfectly fine. It answered some of my questions about the film. I can accept most of the tests made for the presentation regarding those 2 frames. Some will not. I guess it's a matter of how much proof one needs to see.

We are in agreement about the mask comparison. Since the exact distances can never be known from the lens to the subject, there's no way an exact scale is possible. The numbers were not revealed to my knowledge but I wasn't really interested in any numbers unless they were exact. Bill's method of the full size blowup and tracing is about as close as we can get IMO. Like it or not, if you believe Bob H was in a suit, then he had to fit into it. So the tracings of the life size Patty head even if not exact was clever of Bill IMO.

 

[LTC8K6]

Actually I think it was reported that the locals did not eat these gorillas. They viewed them as "hairy people".

Local witnesses seems to be accepted and work fine for gorillas but not for bigfoot....

The locals in America would clearly have been shooting bigfoot and using the fur and meat and bones. They had no qualms about hunting and killing anything, including their fellow humans. Even before whitey showed up.

They had no fear of hunting a mammoth. No fear of hunting giant bears. No lack of uses for a nice fur and skin.

The whole place was crawling with fur trappers for a couple hundred years, too. Shooting and trapping anything with fur worth a damn.

Heck, the fur business in Russia was huge, too.

Between 1743 and 1799 over 100 Russian fur-hunting expeditions sailed into Alaskan waters and returned 187,000 pelts worth 8 million rubles (about 6 million dollars).

http://www.akhistorycourse.org/articles/article.php?artID=159

Then there were the loggers...

 

[Mister Earl]

I just think it's kinda funny how someone can view a black and white photo on Wiki supposedly taken in 1906 of a dead Cross River Gorilla and accept it as fact.

Kindly provide evidence that someone saw a black and white photo on a wiki in 1906 of a dead cross river gorilla and accepted it as fact with no other evidence required.

Is this what you think science does?

 

[Night Walker]

Actually I think it was reported that the locals did not eat these gorillas. They viewed them as "hairy people".

You may think that but if you bother to check the facts you will see that it is incorrect:

The major threats affecting or having affected Cross River Gorilla populations are (1) habitat loss or modification, (2) direct killing (for the bushmeat trade, traditional medicine etc.) and (3) the population is at risk due to its very small size and its highly fragmented distribution. Between 1998 and 2002, conservation efforts undertaken by the local people in collaboration with the Cross River Gorilla Research Project (Cameroon) and the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife (MINFOF) project PROFA have markedly reduced gorilla hunting in these areas.

http://www.yog2009.org/index.php?vi...8:crgspeciesinfo&option=com_content&Itemid=70

Furthermore the gorilla has been known as "hairy people" for thousands of years:

The first report on the existence of gorillas was received as far back as 5,000 BC, when the Carthaginian admiral Hanno discovered “savage hairy people”, which the local villagers referred to as “gorillas”, somewhere along the coast of West Africa (Groves, 2003). According to this account, the skins of three “women” were obtained and taken back to Carthage (Reynolds, 1967; Groves, 2003).

POPULATION, DISTRIBUTION AND CONSERVATION STATUS OF THE CROSS RIVER GORILLA (GORILLA GORILLA DIEHLI) IN CAMEROON

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Gemora's Ape suit's had features that we see on Patty, namely the "diaper," so is this a common feature of Bigfoot, or a suit?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

You may think that but if you bother to check the facts you will see that it is incorrect:

The major threats affecting or having affected Cross River Gorilla populations are (1) habitat loss or modification, (2) direct killing (for the bushmeat trade, traditional medicine etc.) and (3) the population is at risk due to its very small size and its highly fragmented distribution. Between 1998 and 2002, conservation efforts undertaken by the local people in collaboration with the Cross River Gorilla Research Project (Cameroon) and the Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife (MINFOF) project PROFA have markedly reduced gorilla hunting in these areas.

http://www.yog2009.org/index.php?vi...8:crgspeciesinfo&option=com_content&Itemid=70

This is a great video. I think it's NatGeo. About 1:10 they say the Cross River Gorillas were protected by the locals because they believed they were hairy people. But apparantly not everyone feels that way as it goes on to say they are still being hunted.

Furthermore the gorilla has been known as "hairy people" for thousands of years:

The first report on the existence of gorillas was received as far back as 5,000 BC, when the Carthaginian admiral Hanno discovered “savage hairy people”, which the local villagers referred to as “gorillas”, somewhere along the coast of West Africa (Groves, 2003). According to this account, the skins of three “women” were obtained and taken back to Carthage (Reynolds, 1967; Groves, 2003).

POPULATION, DISTRIBUTION AND CONSERVATION STATUS OF THE CROSS RIVER GORILLA (GORILLA GORILLA DIEHLI) IN CAMEROON

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=27TuUTfp778#at=85

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Guys, I'm just here to view and discuss the P/G film stuff. I really don't wanna get into a debate that tries to prove or disprove Bigfoot. That's a circle and there's no way either side can "win". Thanks, Chris B.

 

[Resume]

Guys, I'm just here to view and discuss the P/G film stuff. I really don't wanna get into a debate that tries to prove or disprove Bigfoot. That's a circle and there's no way either side can "win". Thanks, Chris B.

There is no real debate because there is no bigfoot. PGF is a guy in a suit; the whole world knows this save for bigfoot enthusiasts.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Chris, you say that's what you're here for, but clearly you don't want to discuss anything with regards to Patty being a suit.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

There is no real debate because there is no bigfoot. PGF is a guy in a suit; the whole world knows this save for bigfoot enthusiasts.

I don't think the World will take your word for it.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

You've ignored the vast majority of comments on here, and I personally asked you about the diaper 3 times. Ignorance is bliss.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Chris, you say that's what you're here for, but clearly you don't want to discuss anything with regards to Patty being a suit.

I remember a reply to you about the "diaper" The 2 frame pic used for the presentation shows no such "diaper"

 

[Resume]

I don't think the World will take your word for it.

Except it pretty much does. You need to get out of that bigfoot world a bit.

 

[LTC8K6]

Guys, I'm just here to view and discuss the P/G film stuff. I really don't wanna get into a debate that tries to prove or disprove Bigfoot. That's a circle and there's no way either side can "win". Thanks, Chris B.

If you can prove Patty is a sasquatch, then you do indeed win, on at least two accounts.

Since all we have of Patty is the PGF incident, you would seem to be limited.