Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 5

Pterodactyl said:
So, basically any time it comes down to quantifying something, it's best to avoid it and focus on the gestalt.
Click to expand...

Actually, footers would rather focus on anything that allows them to ignore the reality of no bigfoot anything anywhere. Inventing metrics concerning a fuzzy phonied-up monkey movie is as good a red herring as any.
 
hiflier on BFF said:
In retrospect it appears that an averave 6 foot Human male will have a total shouder span of a little over 25% of his height. Patty has a toal shoulder span of 42%!! And that's if she is only 6 foot tall.
Click to expand...


Wow, her shoulder width is 42% of her height.

42% seems highly disproportionate for a bipedal hominoid. Yet when I look at Patty I see what appears to be a form of bulky hominoid that is highly proportionate.

What is going on here? Are my eyes deceiving me?
 
Your eyes can't comprehend the unusual angle of her walk.

Instead focus on how long her arms are.
 
William Parcher said:
Wow, her shoulder width is 42% of her height.

42% seems highly disproportionate for a bipedal hominoid. Yet when I look at Patty I see what appears to be a form of bulky hominoid that is highly proportionate.

What is going on here? Are my eyes deceiving me?
Click to expand...

Using the average shoulder width ratio means nothing. He needs to measure a few of the people that sit next to me on airplanes, or use the extreme upper values of his data. Plus Bob said the suit had football shoulder pads in it.
 
http://bigfootforums.com/topic/57919-patty-is-real/?page=4
This is worth an all out investigation into the matter because even my somewhat primitive investigation has already shown what should be obvious as far as not being able to fake Patty. It's even more obvious in the stabilized version of the film. Patty's motion compared with Patty's shoulder width truly says it all.

And that's what a new, current, logic and focus should be aimed at. This thread will be a week old tomorrow. So far, no detractors. That says something.
Click to expand...
It says that the twelve or thirteen deep thinkers who regularly frequent that establishment are even more clueless than you.
 
I guess I am way behind on Bigfoot news but I don’t live in a cave. So how is it that Bill Munns moved to Vietnam and became a novelist without me hearing about it?
 
barehl said:
The figure walks exactly how I would expect a human male to walk.


Obviously hand extensions. This would certainly explain the unnatural positioning of the hands.
Click to expand...

No hand extensions. His hands just fall short of the gloves.
 
GT/CS said:
No hand extensions. His hands just fall short of the gloves.
Click to expand...

Yes, if his fingers didn't fill the gloves this could easily extend the costume hands by 4-5 inches. That would probably be enough for the effect we see.
 
barehl said:
The figure walks exactly how I would expect a human male to walk.


Obviously hand extensions. This would certainly explain the unnatural positioning of the hands.
Click to expand...

Barehl thinks I was being serious.
LOLZ
 
The world of Bigfoot is like that old friend you had from years ago; you can not see each other for a decade and when you do finally cross paths, it's like nothing ever changed!
 
HarryHenderson said:
:thumbsup: I've always given Roger Patterson credit for being a "made things happen" kind of guy. With his PGF ending up being way more than just a curious film clip that has far outlasted its presumptive lifespan. He surely wasn't stupid, but I bet he had no serious thoughts its legacy would be so alive and well 50 years later. For all intents and purposes he invented the three-dimensional Bigfoot as we know it with the PGF, he just didn't live long enough to see that.

“Only those who attempt the absurd can achieve the impossible.” AE
Click to expand...

As much as what Roger did was trend-setting and unique, it also took a plethora of gullible ass-hats to continue the silliness for over 40 years and make the PGF what it is today.
 
William Parcher said:
Wow, her shoulder width is 42% of her height.

42% seems highly disproportionate for a bipedal hominoid. Yet when I look at Patty I see what appears to be a form of bulky hominoid that is highly proportionate.

What is going on here? Are my eyes deceiving me?
Click to expand...

So happens I have a set of shoulder pads that I scored for nothing at a garage sale, and they have a width of 30 inches. That is 42% of 6ft.
(Drops mic)
 
Hi guys. I appreciate what y'all do here. Now, I am 50/50 on the film (which I have never been percentage-wise on the film; I have always been 60-40 or 80/20 or even 100% it being real). But to me personally, even if the film is a hoax, it does not mean there is no Sasquatch. I realize you will all say there is no Bigfoot, and that's fine. But aside from that, one thing I want to throw out there-IF the film is a hoax, does it necessarily have to be Heironimus? Supposing it is someone else in the suit, someone who let Heironimus take the fall, as it were? Could it possibly have been Gimlin in a suit, or someone else close to Patterson and Gimlin? What do you guys think? Would love some feedback on this, and thanks!
 
HBSquatchMay2018 said:
. . .even if the film is a hoax, it does not mean there is no Sasquatch.
Click to expand...
Right. It just means that one more dude faked a bigfoot film.

HBSquatchMay2018 said:
. . . IF the film is a hoax, does it necessarily have to be Heironimus?
Click to expand...
Nope. There are still some mysteries about the film. For example, we know that Patterson ordered a Philip Morris ape costume but many folks are skeptical that it's that costume we see in the film. More likely Patterson used the costume to help him better design one of his own making, perhaps using pieces of the Morris suit. That makes it likely that Patterson did some testing - and maybe even a dry run - before the Bluff Creek film was made. It could be that Heironimus did wear an ape suit for Patterson but that his film wasn't the one that was released. This would help explain some discrepancies in Heironimus' account - although so, of course, would be faulty memories decades later.

Note that Patterson is alleged to have been in a furry suit too, and that he was even evidently attacked by a dog while "practicing" in it. According to some analyses of the film, the subject could actually be much shorter than 6 feet tall, raising the possibility that it was the 5'3" Roger and not the 6'3" Bob H in the suit we see in the film.
 
Last edited:
HBSquatchMay2018 said:
Hi guys. I appreciate what y'all do here. Now, I am 50/50 on the film (which I have never been percentage-wise on the film; I have always been 60-40 or 80/20 or even 100% it being real). But to me personally, even if the film is a hoax, it does not mean there is no Sasquatch. I realize you will all say there is no Bigfoot, and that's fine. But aside from that, one thing I want to throw out there-IF the film is a hoax, does it necessarily have to be Heironimus? Supposing it is someone else in the suit, someone who let Heironimus take the fall, as it were? Could it possibly have been Gimlin in a suit, or someone else close to Patterson and Gimlin? What do you guys think? Would love some feedback on this, and thanks!
Click to expand...
Greetings. I'm pretty sure I know of who you are. I bet if I told you there's a whole bunch of reading (and searching) you should do before asking those types of questions you'd just think I was being rude. The simple answer is there's no unanimity here as to who it was, only that it was somebody, potentially BH. We're not sure exactly how and when it was produced either, just that the timelines and recollections of events from all those involved don't add up and never did. Nor do we totally agree how "honest" Bob Gimlin is/has been. Some think he's been lying through his teeth since day one, me included.

Clearly the film is a hoax and thusly so is the beast. It's not a random coincidence that when you take away the PGF from the Bigfoot equation there's no other piece of 'evidence' in any form that even hints such a beast could exist now or ever. Not a body, not an arm, not a turd, nor a hide nor hair. Not another clear film or video nor a good picture nor an affidavit signed with an X. Hence a big reason why "science" won't touch it. There's literally nothing for the Kardashians science to touch. As it's proven over and over again daily, Bigfoot is only in the minds of its believers.

Even subtracting the last 500,000 years, seems simple reasoning would tell you the last 50 years is more than enough time for just one piece of some kind of real empirical evidence to have surfaced for such a top tier type of species. The impossibility is in our never having found any.

The PGF is actually a great lesson on the power-of-suggestion. And so cleverly combined with our innate fascination with monsters and it was (in hindsight) a can't miss. The genius of it may be in his outplaying the obviousness of it. The one answer we'll likely never know is did Patterson originally intend the film to be simply part of the bigger film he was making about "America's Abominable Snowman", with no intention of it to be presented as anything other than a re-creation within that film, but that it unexpectedly turned out to be a pretty convincing little slice on its own? I mean, if you're making a general interest type movie about a supposed beast nobody's ever filmed (and you know never will), what's the absolute single best thing that could happen? To somehow get film footage of the "real" beast. Ta da! :wink:
 
HBSquatchMay2018 said:
Hi guys. I appreciate what y'all do here. Now, I am 50/50 on the film (which I have never been percentage-wise on the film; I have always been 60-40 or 80/20 or even 100% it being real). But to me personally, even if the film is a hoax, it does not mean there is no Sasquatch. I realize you will all say there is no Bigfoot, and that's fine. But aside from that, one thing I want to throw out there-IF the film is a hoax, does it necessarily have to be Heironimus? Supposing it is someone else in the suit, someone who let Heironimus take the fall, as it were? Could it possibly have been Gimlin in a suit, or someone else close to Patterson and Gimlin? What do you guys think? Would love some feedback on this, and thanks!
Click to expand...


So, what evidence is out there that gives you 50% confidence that bigfeets are real?
 
My 1998 sighting, which I already know you are going to tear apart. Was driving home on Highway 61 3 miles south of Shaw, Mississippi, 1:15 A.M. spotted something walking across the highway 150 yards away. Reached the point where it was crossing the road, spotted a large, white, hairy creature with its back to me (it never looked at me). Saw massive musculature in its upper back as I passed it. Believe it or not, I did try to rationalize it for about a month afterwards, but then realized that it was indeed a large hairy hominoid. I was not thinking Bigfoot when I saw it, so that cannot explain what I saw in that context. I know that I cannot prove to anyone here what I saw and am not trying to. I do think I saw a Bigfoot, I do not BELIEVE I saw one. Can I prove it? No. I am 50/50 on the film but 100 on the reality of the creature despite the skepticism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom