Bob Gimlin regrets releasing Bigfoot video

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, Carnoferox said:

Bob Gimlin is the Pope of the CoB, and Matt Moneymaker, Rick Dyer, and Jeff Meldrum are Archbishops.

Comeon guys its possible to believe in the possibility of bigfoot's existence without being obnoxiously dogmatic about it. 

[Merc14]

16 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Comeon guys its possible to believe in the possibility of bigfoot's existence without being obnoxiously dogmatic about it. 

Farmer, with all due respect the folks being dogmatic here are the ones who insist that the creature can't be a man in a suit because the suit would have to be so ultra sophisticated that even today we couldn't build it much less do so in 1967.  This is a patently absurd statement when you watch the movie and see that big caboose of butt not move while the "creature" is moving over the terrain.    How about stating unequivocally that no man in a suit could articulate his limbs like the "creature" does?   The definition of dogmatic is :

1. Dogmatic, dogmatical

a. (of a statement, opinion, etc) forcibly asserted as if authoritative and unchallengeable

b. (of a person) prone to making such statements

2. (Philosophy) of, relating to, or constituting dogma: dogmatic writings.

3. based on assumption rather than empirical observation

 

Statements like the above are perfect examples of a dogmatic belief system, especially the part about based on assumption rather than empirical observation.   All Bigfootery has is assumptions. 

Edited July 19, 2016 by Merc14

[Merc14]

On ‎7‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 10:51 PM, SSilhouette said:

Ah, the New Religion of Skeptics are thick on this thread I see.  Belittle, berate, lie about what's in the footage...whatever the deacon calls for.  Hey, it's a living...

 

I doubt bigfoot wears a bra.  You should see women in their 30s in aboriginal land.  The tits hang often down to the abdomen where the tips then jut outward at the bottom.  just like Patty's. 

 

Next dogma from the church of skeptics?  Real world phenomenon is kicking your butt on this film guys.  Face it.  For a hoax in 1967 it is the best there ever was.  Try walking large smooth strides over boulders and logs while looking over your shoulder, wearing a huge, heavy, hot ape costume with your tits swinging...then get back to me..

@SSilhouette some medical information that suggests just the opposite of your assertion that Bigfoot females would have long saggy breasts as Patterson drew them  http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/259073.php

[SSilhouette]

21 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

That's in Russia and not Bigfoot in America. No such fossils have been found here. Skull variation in size are well within the range of human norms, such as that of a linebacker versus that of a jockey. Has absolutely nothing do with the topic in question. Relic populations of the genus Homo were all over Asia. Not a single fossil of one has been found here.

...lol... you're serious with that post?  BTW, it's not a fossil.  It's an exhumed skull from a man named "Khwit" who died in the early 1900s.  He was reported by Russian dignitaries and towns people to be born from a captured bigfoot female named "Zana" and sired by a human male. 

So now proof of bigfoot has to come just from America or "bigfoot isn't real"...lol...  How funny.

 

Skull of the 1/2 bigfoot man Khwit on the right, compared to the normal human on left.

Skull of the 1/2 bigfoot man Khwit on the left compared to normal human..

Edited July 19, 2016 by SSilhouette

[Carnoferox]

Except for the fact that the DNA was a 100% match for Homo sapiens, with no DNA from Gigantopithecus, Homo neanderthalensis, or any "candidates" for the identity of Bigfoot. Khwit likely suffered from a disease known as acromegaly.

Edited July 19, 2016 by Carnoferox

[SSilhouette]

16 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

Except for the fact that the DNA was a 100% match for Homo sapiens, with no DNA from Gigantopithecus, Homo neanderthalensis, or any "candidates" for the identity of Bigfoot. Khwit likely suffered from a disease known as acromegaly.

Which would be exactly what you would expect from a species known to have interbred with homo sapiens.  Think about it.  They are merely a wild cousin so close to us as to be virtually indistinguishable.  And in their 1/2 offspring, even less so.  Of course the skull of Khwit would show "normal human gene variants".  He had many viable children of his own with homo sapiens.  Doesn't mean a thing about the viability of bigfoot as a living cousin of ours.

[Carnoferox]

If your candidate is Gigantopithecus, its closest relative is the orangutan. It would be impossible for it to interbreed with Homo sapiens.

If your candidate is Homo neanderthalensis, then interbreeding would be possible. However, there would still be traces of distinctive Neanderthal DNA, which Khwit doesn't have.

Khwit is simply a Homo sapiens who suffered from acromegaly.

[oldrover]

On 7/12/2016 at 9:50 PM, PrisonerX said:

 

Sorry Prisoner X, I have no idea why that quote box is there either. 

SSilhoutte, what can you tell me about the skull used for comparison with that of Khwit's? Is it definitely an adult male? Is it definitely from a normal sized adult male? And do they both fall into the normal distribution curve for skull size? 

There was nothing in Sykes' results that suggested anything other than modern human DNA for Khwit. Nothing. His only 'apparently surprising result',  was that his mitochondrial DNA was of Sub Saharan African origin. Not really that much of surprise in fact for anyone with a passing knowledge of the area he lived in. 

Admittedly, Sykes did go on to ignore the past proximity of the Ottoman Empire's borders, its tendency for keeping slaves from a wide range of ethnic backgrounds, and perfect historic correlation for all of this and Zana's appearance in Abkhazia. And went on to speculate, wildly, about whether this represented an early relict migration out of Africa surviving in the remoteness of the Caucasus. And giving rise to the legends of the Almasty. 

But then, it's probably helpful to put that last claim into context by understanding a little more about professor Sykes' credentials. Solid they aren't. 

 

[PrisonerX]

11 hours ago, psyche101 said:

No it does not, not sure how you come to such a strange conclusion.

All body points match up

 

 

 

The arms swings out, not by the side, indicating "balance" was an issue, like a man in a suit might have:

 

 

And the comparison with the hoaxer himself shown nothing amazing about the gait at all:

 

That quick loop comparison with Heironimus is hardly representative. Nevertheless, you can still see that his gait doesn't match up with that of the subject in the PG film. His step is all wrong. 

As to you claiming balance was an issue - Other than it always being an issue for our proprioception to address, the creature, according to an expert in biomechanics (Dr. Dmitri Donskoy)," The gait of the creature is confident, the strides are regular, and exhibit no signs of loss of balance, of wavering, or any redundant movements.". 

http://www.bigfootresearch.com/?name=News&file=article&sid=164

What you think is an indication of a loss of balance is not that at all.

 

 

Edited July 19, 2016 by PrisonerX

[Merc14]

Just now, PrisonerX said:

That quick loop comparison with Heironimus is hardly representative. Nevertheless, you can still see that his gait doesn't match up with that of the subject in the PG film. His step is all wrong. 

As to you claiming balance was an issue. Other than it always being an issue for our proprioception to address, the creature, according to an expert in biomechanics (Dr. Dmitri Donskoy)," The gait of the creature is confident, the strides are regular, and exhibit no signs of loss of balance, of wavering, or any redundant movements.". 

http://www.bigfootresearch.com/?name=News&file=article&sid=164

What you think is an indication of a loss of balance is not that at all. 

 

 

He isn't wearing a big costume that had to weigh nearly 100 pounds.  Strange that you couldn't reach that conclusion yourself.

[PrisonerX]

4 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

He isn't wearing a big costume that had to weigh nearly 100 pounds.  Strange that you couldn't reach that conclusion yourself.

You should tell that to the guy who linked it. 

Also, I'll take that as an admission by you that the two walks are indeed different, like I've stated. 

[Merc14]

29 minutes ago, PrisonerX said:

You should tell that to the guy who linked it. 

Also, I'll take that as an admission by you that the two walks are indeed different, like I've stated. 

When I put on my flight gear, comprised of a harness, G-Suit, vest with survival gear, inflatable vest, helmet, pubs, pistol, dry suit in winter and water, my gait shifted from the norm.  That the man's stride may be slightly different while wearing a massive costume should not surprise anyone .  That said I don't see much difference at all, in fact it is a unique stride peculiar to this  large man yet the two are incredibly similar to each other, I hadn't realized how similar until psyche posted that video comparison and I find it very damning evidence against the creature being anything other than H in a suit. 

Edited July 19, 2016 by Merc14

[aquatus1]

**Again, I will remind people to can the snide comments, and focus on the arguments.**

[Podo]

While the Patterson film is likely either a hoax of a trick, I still think it's the best video to date of a sasquatch. Why? Because we're still debating it to this day. Not just us, either; people all over the place still use it and analyze it. Whether it is a hoax or not really doesn't matter, considering how singularly influential the video is to this subject matter. And, if it is a hoax, it's certainly a phenomenally done hoax, considering it has confused multiple generations of individuals and scientists. Bravo, Patterson and Gimlin, bravo. You may not have created what you set out to create, but you certainly will never be forgotten.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

3 hours ago, SSilhouette said:

Which would be exactly what you would expect from a species known to have interbred with homo sapiens.  Think about it.  They are merely a wild cousin so close to us as to be virtually indistinguishable.  And in their 1/2 offspring, even less so.  Of course the skull of Khwit would show "normal human gene variants".  He had many viable children of his own with homo sapiens.  Doesn't mean a thing about the viability of bigfoot as a living cousin of ours.

But I did one of those DNA family heritage thingies and it could tell me that in my genepool swam some Celts and the odd Angle or Jut. So why couldn't it say "and there's some gigantopithicus" given that gigantopithicus is another species entirely and not just a local flavour of Homo sapiens sapiens?

[Carnoferox]

Gigantopithecus would be incapable of breeding with Homo sapiens. They are looking more for Neanderthal DNA, of which they have found none.

Edited July 19, 2016 by Carnoferox

[+Hammerclaw]

3 hours ago, SSilhouette said:

...lol... you're serious with that post?  BTW, it's not a fossil.  It's an exhumed skull from a man named "Khwit" who died in the early 1900s.  He was reported by Russian dignitaries and towns people to be born from a captured bigfoot female named "Zana" and sired by a human male. 

So now proof of bigfoot has to come just from America or "bigfoot isn't real"...lol...  How funny.

 

Skull of the 1/2 bigfoot man Khwit on the right, compared to the normal human on left.

Skull of the 1/2 bigfoot man Khwit on the left compared to normal human..

You shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet. Andre the Giant had a big head, too.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

3 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

Gigantopithecus would be incapable of breeding with Homo sapiens. They are looking more for Neanderthal DNA, of which they have found none.

My point still stands, if they can tell me I've Irish and Welsh roots from a DNA test, surely they can tell if there's something like Homo Neanderthalis in there.

[kmt_sesh]

Closed for Moderator review.