• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
ChrisBFRPKY said:
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.
Click to expand...

Igbo_Boys_with_Dead_Gorilla_1906.jpg
killed-bigfoot.jpg


What exactly is kind of funny or even slightly askew to look at the left photo and have no issue accepting it as genuine but to scoff at the right photo? Disregard the quality of the right photo or pretend it's better if need be.

I see dead 1906 gorilla and without a single doubt I say yes, that is a gorilla. I see something purported to be dead 1906 Bigfoot and I immediately think photoshop hoax. What is not right in that situation?
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
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.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. How does the figure in the PGF compare to the creatures you have observed in terms of physical appearance and movements? What aspects are most similar and which are least similar?
 
The antique ape suit covered in thick fur is your hoax buster?

I think you are right to a point. I've never really considered that suit close enough to be used for the P/G film. Too fluffy, no muscle structure.

If you see a diaper in those 2 scans that's fine I don't and I don't wear glasses.
 
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?

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.
Click to expand...

Then why is Bill comparing pattys' boobs to human ones?
 
Kilaak Kommander said:
Fair enough. How does the figure in the PGF compare to the creatures you have observed in terms of physical appearance and movements? What aspects are most similar and which are least similar?
Click to expand...

The walk is right on. That smooth gliding stroll is exactly the same.

The head shape is wrong for a female. (here in KY) The female I witnessed had a rounded head. The male's head (here in KY) looks like Patty's , gorilla-like with the sagittal crest.

The nose is wrong. A slitted nose like a gorilla is what I've seen, BUT,this was on a male.

The female face (nose) was obscured by hair and distance. I'm not sure of her nose description because I could not see it clearly.
 
Chris, I'm curious to know, in what way do you feel the two images Greg posted are dissimilar and if in any way, how do you think they are similar?
Skeptical Greg said:
Right.. Munns needs to post this shot:

buttcomp_zpsc0657892.gif


......And explain precisely from his professional, and undisputed expert point of view, why Patty and Charlie Gemora appear to have been getting their furry diapers from the same place, but were never formally introduced..
Click to expand...

I think the black and white frame below is better for comparison.

PattyTurningAG2.gif
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
The antique ape suit covered in thick fur is your hoax buster?

I think you are right to a point. I've never really considered that suit close enough to be used for the P/G film. Too fluffy, no muscle structure.

If you see a diaper in those 2 scans that's fine I don't and I don't wear glasses.
Click to expand...

How do you think the subject of the Hoffman video compares to Patty?

 
STRONG LIKE BEAR said:
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?
Click to expand...

I'm really not trying to ignore anyone unless it's more of a snide remark instead of a question. There's no sense in answering the same question repeatably if it's already been answered. No offense to anyone.

How do they exist anywhere? I don't know how or why, I only know they do exist. I'm fine that you do not believe that. I cannot hold it against anyone as I did not accept it 100% until my sighting. So I don't expect anyone else to.
 
River said:
Are you planning on doing anything with the footage you've shot so far? I remember some screen shots from an interview with Morris. I remember you spoke of interviewing Heironimus (on camera? or otherwise?) as well. Gimlin and DeAtley might be the hard ones to score an interview with.

Do you plan on following up on anything or just dropping the ball completely now? On that note! How's things going for you lately? I hope you're still making music in some form as well.
Click to expand...

I have loads of footage, audio, script, etc. I interviewed many people, particularly in Yakima, WA. I interviewed Morris and his wife Amy in Victoria, BC at the Marriott Hotel. Everything related to the project was put into storage when I left North America. It would be a terrific waste to leave everything but I have neither the time nor the ability to really pursue it now.

Music is great. I'm performing in Canada at the Rifflandia Music Festival before I return home to Japan and have been recording throughout the summer.
 
Kit, my view is that the "diaper" is completely blown out of the water with those 2 still frames Bill used. I will admit that similar features may be shown on some suits but they're also shown in real life. Moving skin is also a good part of the presentation. Patty's skin doesn't move like the suit moved in the presentation.

The "diaper" argument loses validity because a chunky butt also happens on living biological beings. So there is no conclusive proof either way for the "diaper theory" or "chunky butt theory"
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I'm really not trying to ignore anyone unless it's more of a snide remark instead of a question. There's no sense in answering the same question repeatably if it's already been answered. No offense to anyone.

How do they exist anywhere? I don't know how or why, I only know they do exist. I'm fine that you do not believe that. I cannot hold it against anyone as I did not accept it 100% until my sighting. So I don't expect anyone else to.
Click to expand...


You're ignoring me, and I've been nothing but dispassionate with purely fact-based replies.

You brought up the Cross River gorilla in this thread. Then when it became clear that you could not use a studied and documented animal (which was recently assigned a new taxonomic classification) to support your irrational belief in a non-existent animal, you complained it was off-topic.

Nice chatting with you! Enjoy your delusions.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Kit, my view is that the "diaper" is completely blown out of the water with those 2 still frames Bill used. I will admit that similar features may be shown on some suits but they're also shown in real life. Moving skin is also a good part of the presentation. Patty's skin doesn't move like the suit moved in the presentation.

The "diaper" argument loses validity because a chunky butt also happens on living biological beings. So there is no conclusive proof either way for the "diaper theory" or "chunky butt theory"
Click to expand...

Which are those two frames you are referring to? Is it from the 43:05 mark here?...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0a5eaoR1U0
 
Last edited:
kitakaze said:
How do you think the subject of the Hoffman video compares to Patty?

Click to expand...

At first glance I actually liked that video. But after some investigation it leaned toward hoax. (The details matter, just look at all the details listed about Patterson) The "creature" is only partially visible and not for long.

About the only things to gleen from this one is it's of something Big and Black, partially visible for a second, walking on two legs. The P/G film shows much more for much longer hoax or not.

I think this one was also promoting a website if I remember correctly "find Santa" or something like that.
 
tsig said:
Then why is Bill comparing pattys' boobs to human ones?
Click to expand...

Movement of a shockwave thru soft tissue in two different species is one thing.

That's like fluid dynamics and is testable and repeatable.

Comparing muscle structure of two different species and expecting them to be exactly the same is quite another. That's gonna be a fail from the start. Ask yourself, are your arms made the same as a gorilla's? Of course they're not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom