Wednesday, August 10, 2016

NEW Film Evidence Shows Us How Tall Bigfoot Was In Patterson Gimlin Film


MK Davis has done a fantastic panoramic overlay of the Patterson Gimlin film showing exactly the size of the creature compared to a specific human subject. Check it out:


94 comments:

  1. Trump bigger, better, smarter .....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow look at all the other bigfoots in the PG film!

      I'm gonna do a reinterpretation of Patterson-Gimlin because half the story has been overlooked.

      Delete
    2. He is still a man in a world of pussies and sellouts. They are scarred (Dems and crooked Reps)he will bust up their little politics for profit racket!!!!!!

      Hillary wins -------- U.S. Sold down the river ---- Game over!

      Trump or BUST!!!!

      Delete
    3. I'm sorry, what half would that be?

      This is an excellent piece of work by MK, and a bit of a breakthrough with identitying the lens type (though we still would have to find John Green's ha ha!!) Just as I've always thought about Patty's height given the McClarin comparison... Oh...

      And Bob H is 6 foot.

      Delete
    4. Still all the discussion about the bloke in the suit. You feeble minded footers.

      Delete
    5. Iktomi, how about the work of MK showing the gunshot flash and wound to Patty? Was that excellent?

      Delete
    6. I don't really care to be honest... But tell us how you feel...

      Delete
    7. THOU SHALL NOT SPEAK NEGATIVELY OF OTHER BIGFOOT BELIEVERS!

      This is lktomi's prime directive. You will NEVER see him speak badly of fellow believers no matter HOW preposterous their claims.

      Now as for non-believers...all are considered idiots and nothing is held back.

      Delete
    8. You don't care to be honest because the truth hurts. Avoidance is telling mate.

      Delete
    9. You don't know the first thing about what I'm sceptical of, because I'm always too busy mind bending idiots about the real evidence and I just don't act like a big girl's blouse about what I think is bunk. It's pretty simple, what I don't think is credible, I don't discuss as evidence. I'm preoccupied with evidence. Not many researchers can claim to have that.

      Delete
    10. Avoidance? Man, you sure know how to make a grown man cringe. I have no opinion about the massacre theory. I don't care... You seem to care a lot though, tell us how you feel about it.

      (I should get a medal for baby sitting these ******* cry babies all day)

      Delete
    11. The whole point is that you can't pick and choose in regards to what's credible without at least addressing everything else when it's warranted. You seem to be bothered by questions that you would have no problem asking if the sides were reversed.

      Delete
    12. Man, if I'm honest... I struggled to understand that. If MK has a far out theory about Patty, it doesn't suddenly make Patty a man in a monkey suit? D'you now see where I'm coming from?Maybe you should stop crying about irrelevances and start worrying about better arguments. No one likes being labelled a busy idiot.

      Delete
    13. Nobody ever labelled ^ you "busy"!

      Delete
    14. Doesn't it at least put a strain on his credibility? If his analysis is so good at determining Patty's height, how can it be so off in determining she suffered a gunshot wound?

      Delete
    15. Busy educating the likes for you, for sure!

      Delete
    16. No... I don't think it puts a strain on his credibility on little bit. I think you're grasping and I think you're trying too hard. I mean... Some people see imaginary zippers as well, I don't see you crying about that?

      Delete
    17. If that person was advocating a new discovery in the PG film I would consider it in addressing the claim.

      Delete
    18. Joe just got blown the FU*K OUT!

      Delete
    19. THOU SHALL NOT SPEAK NEGATIVELY OF OTHER BIGFOOT BELIEVERS!

      Portals, Nephilim, telepathic communication, blue bags, supernatural abilities - all are acceptable to lktomi because they come from the mouth of fellow believers who are on this very site. How in the world can we believe he can be objective when he won't even speak out against the craziest of statements made by some of the believers here.

      Delete
    20. If I could understand what 3:59 was trying to say, I'd have attempted to address it better.

      4:13... Stop crying. If it's measurable by science, I'll reference it. But that's only because you can't at present measure the preternatural.

      Delete
    21. By your silence you must agree with the preternatural statements made here by some of your fellow believers and that says a lot. There is no way you are objective but are merely a fellow traveler.

      Delete
    22. Yeah, ok bro... Don't let it ruin your day.

      Laters, gators!

      Delete
    23. Oh... And you clearly don't know what preternatural means.

      (Cringe!!)

      Delete
    24. Mine is "Beyond what is normal or natural"

      So what is your definition?

      (Sigh)

      Delete
    25. If something is preternatural, the means for a scientific explanation for it may come at a later time when more information is available, or our understanding of it develops to a point that which we are able to finally scientifically study it.

      Therefore, claiming that I believe in the preternatural is by no way detriment to my stance, because by your own admission it will be fully understood in time and no longer paranormal as a result.

      Delete
    26. Your going to have a long wait....but of course that doesn't matter to you as it just gives you an excuse of why Bigfoot can never be proven. Yes, I'm sure blue bags will be proven as a way of communication by Bigfoot in the future.

      Nice try (shudder)

      Delete
    27. I'm sorry... Trying to make sense of that comment is as difficult as reading the Sphynx.

      Delete
    28. I'm not surprised. Your comprehension skills are not the best.

      Delete
    29. Yes... Just like your emotional problems are everyone else's fault, so is the case with your incoherent babbling.

      Delete
  2. Yeah I see them. How can that have been missed?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nonsense. Its always been known that Roger did not use the standard lens that came with the rented camera but instead used an accessory lens. That was all proved by Bill Munns long ago.

    I don't know what to make of MK Davis. One moment his analysis seems sound the next moment he is claiming Patty has visible hemorrhoids. He is a strange mix of technical capability and non-empirical thought. A bit of a flake really. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for that second paragraph. Iktomi apparently has a problem with the concept.

      Delete
  4. The half that is missing is the context of at least a half-dozen other bigfoot individuals clearly visible on the hillside adjacent to Patty's path. That rather changes interpretations of her behavior and, of course, makes it obvious that she is not a lone, solitary creature far from her clan. They are right there.

    I will isolate, stabilize and depict them clearly and offer a reinterpretation and I know you will hold your breath until you are able to see it Joe.

    Now back to your petty arguing with the non-existence crowd.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The enormous problem with MK Davis is his body of work as a whole. The "massacre" angle of the PG film he advocates along with dubious Mike Sells VHS collection are obvious problems.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's like Thinker Thunker giving all these measurements and ratios of Bigfoot then proceeds to show turkey hunters as Bigfoot. WTF

      Delete
    2. The fence hopper is far too big to be a normal human (the comparison clearly shows this), whilst the manner in which the subject moves quadrupedally prior to jumping the fence is so natural and quite incredible. Also... I'm pretty sure the footage to what looks like a baby primate climbing a tree is from the Sells site.

      Pretty impeccable video evidence I think.

      Delete
    3. I'm not surprised you would think it impeccable.

      Nice avoidance to the whole massacre thing though.

      Delete
    4. Tree Bigfoot;
      https://youtu.be/Ouyp7n2C1Qc

      Fence Hopper Comparison;
      https://youtu.be/0ovIcucRN7c

      Fence Hopper Quadrupedal Motion;
      https://youtu.be/52vhmTeMbu4

      ... If you knew the first thing about what the **** you think you're talking about, you'd know how good this video evidence is.

      Delete
    5. Thinker Thunker, Thinker Thunker, Thinker Thunker...

      Delete
    6. ... Has another brilliant video about a quadrupedal Sasquatch... You should check it out!

      Delete
    7. What do you think about the video were he calls the turkey hunters Bigfoot?

      Delete
    8. I agree. Wouldn't you agree that this analysis might weaken his other arguments in some people's minds?

      Delete
    9. "If you've never been wrong, you've never been creative. The bigger the ideas, the more you're wrong."
      - Todd Disotell

      Delete
    10. Like scripture, that quote is all in the interpretation mate. Nice try though.

      Delete
    11. No... That's a PhD you're usually cheerleading putting you straight.

      Ironic.

      Delete
    12. Now that you have come clean (at least a wee bit), are you willing to say DS's blue bag theory is sh*t?

      Delete
    13. How in the world can we believe you can be objective when he won't even speak out against the craziest of statements made by some of the believers here.

      Delete
    14. 4:24... Come clean? Are you sober?

      4:26... Sweetheart, I couldn't give a monkey's about what you believe me about, ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    15. Listen pal, you might be suffering from a lengthy "episode" about DS (and that's describing it mildly), but please stop trying to drag everyone else into it, it's not becoming of an adult male.

      Delete
    16. Neither is being an intellectually dishonest ahole but here you are.

      Delete
    17. Nwah... I don't think anyone who struggles with explaining away what is allegedly so obvious, should be shaking a stick at anyone else's intelligence.

      A bit of friendly advice... Deal with DS or do something else, because reading your meltdowns on every comment section is starting to paint you in a very pathetic light.

      Delete
    18. I can tell you this 4:26 - lktomi has no credibility with me when he won't even recognize how insane some of the statements made by his fellow believers are. I have a lot more respect for Dr. Squatch at least calling out others even if I think his stuff is crap too.

      Delete
    19. I think you have me confused with someone else dork. I merely asked about the blue bag theory because you dared say that one of TT's videos was weak.

      Perhaps you should look up intellectual dishonesty because I get the feeling you don't know what it means, even if you practice it.

      Delete
    20. ^ Education seems to be your weakness

      Joe

      Delete
    21. My credibility, will suffer when you grow a pair and actually counter the evidence I reference...

      Your burden remains son.

      Delete
    22. "Blue bags, blue bags, blue bags, blue bags, WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!"

      Tee, hee!

      Delete
    23. Good to know exactly where you stand which is:

      You will believe anything as long as it comes from the mouth of a fellow believer.

      Delete
    24. Yeah... Just address me with that next time you're face falling around the evidence I reference, ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    25. Where I come from the only males you say tee, hee are fa ggots.

      Delete
    26. Maybe... But where you come from, the woman have hairy backs and can drink you under the table too.

      Delete
    27. A little hair never hurt anyone and considering I don't drink that's not saying much.

      Delete
    28. If you consider the comments of what your fellow believers say is evidence right here on this very blog then I say BRING IT ON!

      Delete
    29. Clear photos;
      http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot2.jpg
      http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot1.jpg
      http://www.texasbigfoot.net/images/bigfoot3.jpg
      Scat;
      http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/scat.htm
      Hair;
      http://www.texlaresearch.com/okhair4.jpg
      http://www.texlaresearch.com/okhairroot.jpg
      http://www.texlaresearch.com/unknown-chimp-bear.jpg
      Bones;
      http://sasquatchresearchers.org/forums/index.php?/topic/621-anthropologists-paper-on-the-lovelock-skull/
      Forensic physical evidence;
      http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints
      Audio;
      http://www.sasquatchcanada.com/uploads/9/4/5/1/945132/kts_p182-186.pdf

      ... There's we go, start working your way through that, clever clogs! I expect a full report by tomorrow, ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    30. Where's the evidence that Bigfoot (pops off heads like a soda bottle cap"? Where is your documentation and proof of that?

      Delete
    31. Analysing the available data and the reports merely puts this into context. For example, a significant percentage of the reports point to a creature 8 feet in height... The collaborating physical evidence? The track impressions that are twice the size of that of a normal human. Whilst though many prints are different in size, they still have the same texture and ridge flow pattern, like a humans however twice the size; meaning a subject twice as big, twice the strength, three times if they've evolved to their environment like one would naturally expect.

      Delete
    32. Just as I suspected - no documentation or proof but merely assumptions and speculation. Yes, let's work our way through your "evidence":

      Clear photos:

      Clear? Are you kidding me? You can read all sorts of things into the PG film.

      Scat:

      ONE pile of scat 16 YEARS ago? Are you kidding me?

      Hair:

      Are you kidding me? The only way to identify a hair is with known samples. Just because it is identified as unknown doesn't mean it came from a Bigfoot. How many of the hair samples submitted to Dr. Sykes turned out to be from a Bigfoot?

      Bones:

      Are you kidding me? Andy White has addressed the Lovelock skull. It's not from a Bigfoot.

      Forensic physical evidence:

      You have got to be kidding me. Crowley has addressed this. With all the casts made of suspected Bigfoot prints why don't we have more of these? When were those made - 1982? How about something a little more recent?

      Audio:

      Recordings made with inexpensive recorders back in the seventies? Are you kidding me? You referenced a paper presented 38 YEARS ago. Things have progressed a little since then doc.

      All your "evidence" is weak. It can all be challenged and contested. But I have a feeling you will continue to use it over and over and over because it's all you got and all you will ever have. You will be talking Nephilim and portals any day now - it's just a matter of time.

      Delete
    33. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    34. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    35. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    36. Clear photos;
      Yes, clear as day of a subject shot in direct sunlight which goes against monkey suit methods of the time due to it revealing suit anomolies. I really don't think Roger would have been so detailed in his "costume", shooting in shakey 16MM. I don't think he anticipated the footage being digitalised and stabelised 45 years later and decided to put SFX defying detail to his costume just in case. Detail that could have got him a job in the most well paid of Hollywood SFX as opposed to "swindling about Bigfoot". Got monkey suit?

      Scat;
      Um, no... Plenty of scat has been documented over the years. On the $10 Million Bigfoot Bounty show, Todd Disotell stated that scat samples are very difficult even for professionals to collect properly, because they have to have the right end of the sample so that there are enough epithelial cells to get a DNA signature from.
      "The other case of which I have first hand knowledge is a quantity of which was shipped in a plastic container with dry ice to me in New York, for trans-shipment to Professor W. C. Osman Hill, then senior scientist at the London Zoological Society. This specimen shook up the scientist. I wish we had space to give you their report in full. It is quite amazing. The points of significance in it are as follows: In general, this fecal mass did not in any way resemble that of any known North American animal. On the other hand, it did look humanoid, but it had some peculiar features, as if the lower bowel had a spiral twist. But above all, it was composed exclusively of vegetable matter and this as far as could be identified of local California fresh water plants. The real clincher, however was that it contained the eggs and desiccated remains of certain larvae otherwise known only in (a) some North American Indian tribal groups in the Northwest, (b) pigs imported from south China, (c) human beings in country districts in southwest China and (d) in pigs in that same area."
      Ivan T Sanderson
      Argosy Magazine, April Issue, 1968

      Hair;
      Unknown pimate hair, verified on an instance where a sighting occured by multiple people, at least one of these a government employee (where tracks were accumulated in the same instance), verified by Dr Paul Fuerst of Ohio State University & the Oregon Regional Primate Research Centre. The hairs were collected by forest rangers at a sighting where tracks were accumulated too. Dr Frank Poirier, chairman of the Ohio State's department of anthropology confirms this. These were later confirmed to also be be case by Dr Fahrenbach;
      "I have by now a dozen purported sasquatch hair samples, all morphologically congruent (which rules out hoaxing) and all effectively indistinguishable from a human hair of the particular structure (great variability is available among the latter). DNA extracted from both hair shaft or roots (hair demonstrably fresh) was too fragmented to permit gene sequencing. That characteristic is also sometimes found in human hair that lacks the medulla (as does sasquatch hair - at least what I am willing to identify as such)."
      "Eventually I found a match in a rather obscure database from Central Asia. The Walla Walla sample matched an induvidual from Uzbekistan! How on earth could that be explained. I have not had long to think about it, but my immediate thought is that I find it very difficult to reconcile this result on the Walla Walla hair with the impressive provenance provided for it by Paul Freeman and his companions. The Walla Walla hair result is the most intriguing from among my North American samples. I scarcely think I can claim to have identified the sasquatch as a feral Uzbek, but that is the closest I have managed to get at the moment".
      - Dr Bryn Sykes
      So it is here, considering we have hair samples that have uniform morphology verified by multiple experts, as we do with biological dermals verified at the same frequency, that we are at a stage of research that points to an unknown primate leaving its sign.

      Delete
    37. Bones;
      No... Andy White's stance is that he expects "Bigfoot" to be a bipedal gorilla, when in fact the reports spanning tens of thousands, and the docmunented anatomy points to a prehistoric human. Throwing something out because it doesn't fit your expectations of something who's existence you don’t even think is credible, isn't very good logic. It means that nothing you claim can be taken as a substantial argument, because your original premise contradicts your methods of moving the goal posts.

      Forensic evidence;
      Jimmy Chulcutt, an actual expert on dermals, is very adamant about the prints that he has verified and though they are from different locations, they still have the same texture and ridge flow pattern, like a humans however twice the size. Chilcutt states that the casting process can accidentally accurately make what are considered convincing biological dermals. The faked dermals that Crowley sent him were covered in artificial ridge artefacts from the pouring process. The three casts in question that Chilcutt examined, they didn't have this... This is because when you are walking barefoot on the forest floor, the foot comes in contact with both fallen leaves and the soil in making an impression. Therefore, these artefacts would be present in consistency right across the different soil areas of the foot fall and they're not. The delta ridges on prints change directions over 45 degrees; they converge and deviate. This is a major indicator that the dermals are biological and as Chulcutt states, these do not appear on any of the artefacts. So, whilst Crowley can make something that looks a little like dermals, to an expert opinion and a trained eye these are actually nothing like biological dermals. But these expert opinions aren't important when you're special pleading about the evidence. Something more modern? How about September 2000? There were unknown primate hairs found there that have the exact uniform morphology to a collection Henner Fahrenbach has in his collection, to which some are currently being studied by Dr Bryan Sykes. And we just so happen to have the dermals there too... And, where were the Sasquatch tracks I hear you say? Well this would appear to provide a reason for the subject crawling in the mud up to the fruit, so as to not leave any recognisable sign in tracks; giving an explanation for the body impression on the ground. The scientist that lifted the dermals has also got thousands of track castings under his belt, practically totally eradicating any chance of casting artefacts being a contributing factor. There has also not been a source of scientific equivalence to have conclusively shown that the Skookum cast is not what the scientists at hand claim it is.

      Delete
    38. "The ridge characteristics are consistent with other examples from Sasquatch footprints Meldrum has studied in collaboration with officer Jimmy Chilcutt, a latent fingerprint examiner with the Conroe, Texas, Police Department. The anatomy of the heel, ankle, and Achilles tendon are also distinct and consistent with models of the Sasquatch foot derived by Meldrum after examining hundreds of alleged Sasquatch footprints.
      Hair samples collected at the scene and from the cast itself and examined by Dr. Henner Fahrenbach, a biomedical research scientist from Beaverton, Ore., were primarily of deer, elk, coyote, and bear, as was expected since tracks in the wallow were mostly of those animals. However, based on characteristics matching those of otherwise indeterminate primate hairs collected in association with other Sasquatch sightings, he identified a single distinctly primate hair as “Sasquatch.”
      Sasquatch is a species of North American ape suspected to inhabit the mountainous forests of the Northwest. Its existence remains controversial despite numerous eyewitness sightings and the discovery of enormous footprints."
      http://www.bfro.net/news/bodycast/ISU_press_rel_cast.pdf

      Audio;
      Stop special pleading about the data found on an "inexpensive recorder", it's demonstrating a total lack of understanding about audiology and is embarrassing;
      "CONCLUSION REACHED BY DR. KIRLIN AND LASSE HERTEL ON THE SIERRA SOUNDS
      The results indicate more than one speaker, one or more of which is of larger physical size than an average human adult male. The formant frequencies found were clearly lower than for human data, and their distribution does not indicate that they were a product of human vocalizations and tape speed alteration."
      http://www.sasquatchcanada.com/uploads/9/4/5/1/945132/kts_p182-186.pdf
      ... There's also too many audio compilations to count with Sasquatch vocals. Use the Internet for something other than BBW for once and educate yourself on the matter. I can even educate you some more if you have the belly for it.

      ... So, I guess the evidence I reference isn't so weak after all. I mean, surely something "so obviously bunk" wouldn't require you to "forget" about such important and irrefutable data, right?

      Delete
    39. Exactly what I expected - more of the same rehash from the same people you always quote from. Why? Because it's all you got. I would love to see some unbiased experts look at this "evidence" and evaluate it with modern day standards and techniques. We should have tons of this type of evidence by now if Bigfoot actually existed. Instead we just have the same old dated stuff from the same people and we have heard this for decades.

      Your certainly educating no one but you do make us laugh. I guess that's good for something.

      Delete
    40. That's the weakest sh*t for a counter argument I've read in ages. Sorry chump, if "all I've got" appears to account for every source of evidence short of a modern type specimen, then one can at least deduce something with the widely reported anatomy is running around the wilderness of the US. My evidence appears to be standing up to the scrutiny, I've spent more time researching your own stance than you have, and there is nothing that stands up against it. Don't like it? Then please try harder and find your "unbiased" sources. Rhetorical twits like you demand evidence and when it's presented by consistent scientific means, they're suddenly "biased". Audacity knows no boundaries in the mind of a hypocrite I guess. That's ad hominem buddy, and a sign that the quality of evidence is not important to you, and you're a little denialist. Physical evidence in tracks are sourced in the US every week, and you want more evidence? Ha ha ha!!

      Enthusiast #1 – “I have physical evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #2 – “I have forensic evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #3 – “I have video evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #4 – “I have thermal evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #5 – “I have biological evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #6 – “I have audio evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #7 – “I have more physical evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #8 – “I have even MORE physical evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #9 – “I have physical evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.
      Enthusiast #10 – “I have physical evidence that amounts to repeatable, scientific evidence for Bigfoot”.
      Pseudosceptic – “Though I have no means of demonstrating otherwise, no you don’t”.

      … Pseudosceptic – “If these creatures were real, people would be collecting evidence for them all the time!”

      Iktomi – (Sigh)

      Oh... Jimmy Chilcutt actually set out to debunk the casts before having the shock of his life. Maybe one day you'll grow up a bit and start being responsible for your claims. The most laughably audacious thing I've heard in weeks is the fact that your beat arguments have been taken apart years ago, and weren't even scientifically backed in the first place, yet evidence that has stood the test of time is somehow to my detriment?

      What a patoot.

      Delete
  6. Hi MK Great comparison. I think if you look closely, you'll notice that even though background is in alignment, the subjects are not. The man is walking closer to camera then Patty. It also looks like there is a difference in height if compared by neck area and head turn. Think Bigfoot is prehistoric offshoot of the 10 prehistoric humans that existed. Great work

    ReplyDelete
  7. Replies
    1. http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf

      Delete
    2. I found the whole tribe ICKY!!

      Pause and check them out....Top right upper corner...WOW!!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OvDcboD7fw

      Delete
    3. Icktomi, Please feel free to say that you wholeheartedly believe in my Blue bag theory, I have this so thoroughly researched out, and have 10 other researchers, in 10 different States also confirm this!
      It's SOLID research!!!
      These trolls never watched any of the Blue bag video's, and the tied bags, deep in the woods!
      Plus, i collect all the bags, and 1-2 weeks later, they all re-appear!
      Anything i do is 100% Legit, and i can back up!

      Delete
    4. Yes lktomi, please feel free to back up Dr. Squatch's bluebag theory. If it's solid research then you should support it and give a solid answer.

      Delete
    5. So should you!
      And you should post a name, don't be a coward!

      Delete
    6. HeY M.K., whaK happened to the deadly Bigfoot mucus you touched that you claim hospitalized you??
      You claimed there was no cure!

      Liar

      Delete
  8. Gee, can you make it any smaller?

    ReplyDelete
  9. as Judge Smails would say to all of you

    Dont you have homes?

    holy shit get back to work!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Paddy's height has already been determined at about 7'-4" by scaling her height from a stick that she kicked up when she was walking, and researchers retrieving that stick later. MK already concurred on this height in 2006, in a video produced at that time. Apparently, those in search of fame via the PG film, have short memories.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Patty's height compared to the human subject appears to vary from about a head taller early on to about equal toward the end of the piece. Not sure how valid or relevant this evidence is. If Meldrum is right and Patty is 7'6 then that makes possibility of a hoax, if there still is any possibility of a hoax, much less. If the subject is only 6'5, then that is more of a problem for the film....which I take to be authentic.

    ReplyDelete