Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[LTC8K6]

Well, no one could ever see part of a bigfoot and shoot it thinking it was a bear, for example. They always see the whole thing and know it looks too human to shoot. No one would ever come upon a foot sitting down with it's back to them, for example, where it could easily be mistaken for a bear, and shoot it.

Of course when people do shoot at a foot, they miss, or foot whips out his Batfink cape.

After all, foot never does anything but appear, walk around for a while, and disappear. Foot never walks to a pleasant spot to sit down and play in the dirt, drawing with it's fingers, for example. Foot never walks up to a good spot and rolls around on the ground to scratch his back, either. Foot never walks to a mud puddle to play in it, either. Not even the foot children.

Foot just marches on, from nowhere to nowhere.

 

[Melissa]

erm...

To be fair and impartial, I should be the one to be blamed by bringing in to light (again) the myth issue, at post 4652
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2703016&postcount=4652
and perhaps by providing an unballanced view of her arguments.

Melissa has been discussing this aspect since then, but so far it does not seem to be her sole or main "pro" argument. From her past posts here and by my own (limited and with cloaking device engaged) visits to other forums, its not her "main dish". I think she's more on to prints and witness reports, but I may be wrong.

Actually, my reading is that even for Hairy Man (who is an anthropologist) the myths are not the main evidence, but complimentary pieces of data. I've seen LAL and Huntster being much more confident and prone to defend myths as important "pro" bigfoot evidence.

If someone is in touch with Hairy Man (or if she's lurking here) please confirm if I'm right or not.

OK, now all I have to do is to wait for Carcharodon to start whining about me being unfair, coward, etc. to Huntster.

I can't speak for Hairy Man, but I will say you are correct about my interest and focus in this research. I appreciate your kind words Correa Neto.

I enjoy discussing all aspects of this mystery, but I do not pretend to have total knowledge of all the different aspects and issues that bring people into this. I do find certain things interesting - I do like to talk about them, but my knowlege is less than authoritative. I enjoy listening, and learning as well.

 

[William Parcher]

I have ot admit, I am curious how the suit was made.

There are three factors that can lead to an idea of what the Patty suit was like and how it was made.

1. The testimony of Bob Heironimus, who is the man that continues to stand by his confession of wearing the suit for Roger Patterson at Bluff Creek.

2. The testimony of Philip Morris, who is the man (a costume manufacturer) that continues to stand by his claim of selling Patterson a gorilla suit in May 1967, and instructing him (by phone) on ways to modify the suit.

3. What we can see of the suit from observing the available copies of the film.

It appears that Patterson customized a Morris gorilla suit to make it look like a Bigfoot, and then put Heironimus inside that suit. The suit reveals itself as being a costume in various ways that can be pointed out. Patterson limited the ability to see this as an obvious costume by only showing Heironimus walking upright while wearing it. The structure of the suit would not accomodate certain types of movement and postures without immediately showing that it is a guy in a costume. Bending, squatting or lifting something would have given it all away in an instant.

It's a "Hollywood" gorilla suit that was customized to make it look like a "Bigfoot".

 

[RayG]

Yeah, but without the suit it's all anecdotal ain't it?

RayG

 

[William Parcher]

They would be anecdotal claims even if "the suit" were found now.

It's also anecdotal that Roger Patterson was the man who held the camera for the filming. If Gimlin suddenly confessed that it was all a hoax, that would be another anecdote.

 

[LTC8K6]

Without all of the original film footage, it's anecdotal...

 

[Correa Neto]

Yeah, but without the suit it's all anecdotal ain't it?

RayG

Yes.

And I stand to my previous position-

If a Patty suit is eventually found at someone' basement, many footers will still say you can't prove it was used to shoot PGF.

BTW, ain't there a story told by his relatives and neighbours about Patterson running trials for his "documentary" with a gorilla suit?

Fishy IMHO, to say the least...

 

[LAL]

Welcome to the thunderdome, Teresa!

I'm going to take Lu off of ignore to celebrate your arrival, and in the interest of fair and open debate.

Hi Lu! How have you been!

Good, thank you.

I've been in some NC forestland recently somewhere near where the BFRO expedition went in 2006. Pretty country. Found bear tracks and a box turtle, but not much else. Good to get out of town, anyway.

I haven't checked the board recently and it's heartening to see an interesting discussion going on.

I may have to follow suit and take Correa off Ignore. I'm a little better informed on mythology now.

 

[LAL]

Some ideas are too good not to think. A being that is like a human, yet not really human?

An Australopithecine. Homo habilis.

 

[LAL]

There are three factors that can lead to an idea of what the Patty suit was like and how it was made.

1. The testimony of Bob Heironimus, who is the man that continues to stand by his confession of wearing the suit for Roger Patterson at Bluff Creek.

But he didn't know where the film site was. Bob Gimlin does and he stands by his story as well. Roger passed a lie detector test too.

2. The testimony of Philip Morris, who is the man (a costume manufacturer) that continues to stand by his claim of selling Patterson a gorilla suit in May 1967, and instructing him (by phone) on ways to modify the suit.

But he doesn't have the paperwork. If he couldn't duplicate the suit for the recreation, how did he build the original?

3. What we can see of the suit from observing the available copies of the film.

You're seeing a suit while other see hair with skin and muscle under it. Those aren't BH's proportions.

It's a "Hollywood" gorilla suit that was customized to make it look like a "Bigfoot".

IYHO. Morris isn't even "Hollywood". He's a maker of Halloween costumes.

 

[LAL]

.
Yes, though there's no indication they were fire-breathing.

Might the legend be based on dinosaur fossils?

http://www.desertusa.com/mag98/dec/stories/dinosites.html

There's a similar situation with Greek legends apparently being woven to explain fossil mammals on the island of Samos.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Sorry to diverge again folks, but this is as close to my 15 minutes I will ever get ..

Some of you may have noticed my friendly discussion with Melissa about my suspension over at her forum:
The Search For Bigfoot Forum

I am proud to announce she has added two new rules, that now cover the reason I was suspended for ..

Because the Guidelines didn't seem to be effective we dropped those and in their place created rules of engagement. It is your responsibility to know these. "I didn't know" is not a viable excuse in the event you find yourself looking at suspension or worse. Ignorance is no excuse.

I'm really disappointed there was no honorarium like:

" The Skeptical Greg Memorial Rules of Engagement "

Here are the two new rules that cover my transgression:

Rule #12: DO NOT argue with the admin or moderation staff over closed topics, or broken rules. We aren't the problem. (Two week suspension for this no exceptions)

CLOSED THREADS: When a topic is closed DO NOT start another to continue the same conversation without notifying an admin first. The original thread was closed for a reason. DO NOT start another topic to complain about a topic that has been closed. (Two weeks suspensions for this so read carefully)

Just to be fair and balanced; below is the post I made in " General Discussion " , which earned me my suspension and these new rules.

I'm ready to take my lumps now, if you agree I flagrantly violated these two rules even though they didn't exist at the time.

It was in response to a thread that was locked, because off topic posts continued to be made, after members were asked to stay on topic...

Here is the thread if anyone is interested . You should recognize some of the players..

http://searchforbigfoot.org/index.php?showtopic=27

My Post : ( Deleted from the site )

I certainly agree with guidelines for keeping a thread on topic, but it doesn't seem in the interest of continued discussion to lock a thread in which the topic has strayed.

Wouldn't it make more sense to delete the violating post and warn the offender to cease, and follow up with discipline for the offender if it continues ?

Locking the thread disengages everyone who played by the rules, and wishes to continue looking at the issue as presented ..

Of course I’m specifically talking about the ‘ lift ‘ thread , but it could apply to other threads at a later date.

How far off is ‘ off topic ‘ ? The lift itself takes place within a second or two, and the blurry pixilated frames can show just about anything you can imagine.
Why is it off topic to explore what is being said or observed before and after ( the lift ) , and how it relates to what may or may not be taking place ..
If it is being claimed that an infant Bigfoot is being lifted ( having been suggested by examining the video after the event ) , it seems relevant to discuss what the witnesses actually claimed to have seen at the time; and none that I know of claim it was an infant or that the lift actually took place..

There seems to be a double standard that rears it’s head when it comes to eyewitness Bigfoot reports.

If a skeptic questions an eyewitness account, we invariably get the :

“ Are you calling “ **** “ a liar ? “

However, if a skeptic points out that what is being added to the story, was not part of the eyewitness account, then the proponents are free to suggest that the witness overlooked something, and its O.K. to make up whatever you want, so the eyewitness account matches your own speculation.

With hindsight, I do see where asking the question:

" Does it make sense .......? "

... might have been taken personally by the person who took the action in question ..

And I certainly respect the right of anyone to drain their own pool if the guests won't stop peeing in it .. But of course, then no one, not even the owner, gets to swim ...


So, Melissa, I apologize for suggesting it didn't make sense for you to lock that thread..

 

[William Parcher]

But he didn't know where the film site was.

That's pathetic bullcrap. Are you taking BH's testimony out-of-context again? He was there for one day 40 years ago. But it wouldn't matter to you even if he precisely located (recalled) the film site anyway. You'd still say he is a liar because the film shows a Bigfoot not a guy in a suit, right?

Bob Gimlin does and he stands by his story as well.

We know that. PGF skeptics are charging him with being part of a hoax and continuing to stand by that hoax. BH confessed to being in the suit and consequently implicates Gimlin as being part of the scheme. BG had the opportunity to go on Biscardi's radio program with BH, but he refused the invitation.

Roger passed a lie detector test too.

There's no record of that other than as anecdote. But it doesn't matter much because these tests are obviously worthless. What can anyone say about lie detector tests if Patterson passed one (saying he filmed a real Bigfoot) and Heironimus passed one (saying he was the guy in the suit).

But he doesn't have the paperwork.

Morris shouldn't be expected to still have a sales receipt for a gorilla suit he sold in 1967. He spoke to Patterson twice on the phone including answering questions about modifying the suit. Patterson said he was going to pull a prank. Only months later, Morris sees the PGF on TV, hears Patterson was the filmer... and recognizes his suit (with modifications).

If he couldn't duplicate the suit for the recreation, how did he build the original?

This is more Pattycake bullcrap. You've already been told why he couldn't replicate the suit, and the reason makes perfect sense. Dynel fur is no longer manufactured. This is why the fur suit is a different color (reddish) and texture. It also appears that there was little attempt to try to recreate the internal structure that would have it more closely resembling the PGF costume. BH also now has a pot belly that he didn't have in 1967.

You're seeing a suit while other see hair with skin and muscle under it. Those aren't BH's proportions.

More desperation from a PGF believer. You guys have no choice other than to make wild claims of authenticity and inhuman proportions. The suit is designed to give the impression of an inhuman thing. It's a common strategy in costume design. It really amazes me that to this day there are people who think this really is a Bigfoot. Weird!

IYHO. Morris isn't even "Hollywood". He's a maker of Halloween costumes.

Hollywood was placed in quotes because his suits were used in films and other stage productions. It's an obvious figure-of-speech. Why you can't understand such things is beyond me. Pattycakes are a strange bunch for sure.

 

[Correa Neto]

Oh noooooooooooooooooo!

Same PGF stuff again. Sorry, but I just can't withstand any more repetitions of the same PGF BS. I wish there were an "ignore PGF discussions" function.

Repetition ad infinitum of weak arguments will not make them stronger. One can not turn iron in to gold or PGF in to reliable pro-bigfoot evidence. Alchemy is bogus.

 

[William Parcher]

Mom, look at that bald guy with the glove. What is he doing?
I'm not sure, but stay close to me honey.
But mom, what is he doing?
I told you I don't know. Remember when we talked about what to do when you see strange men?
Yeah, but look at his shirt. I think he is a leader.

 

[William Parcher]

On the PGF...

Anatomy experts see a real animal.

The thing about Roger Patterson, it seems to me, is that he was the prototypical bigfoot enthusiast.

But if he hoaxed the PGF, then he was a...... ? How can we know that Patterson ever truly believed that Bigfoot exists? Did PT Barnum truly believe?

I'm left wondering if Patterson was a Bigfoot skeptic (or denialist) who pretended to believe in order to reap profits. All of the modern YouTube Bigfoot hoaxes seem to boldly present their bogus video "evidence" at a time when anyone could present the real thing. It's as if the hoaxers are confident that the real thing will not suddenly appear (by confirmation) and show that their hoax was a hoax.

Are Bigfoot hoaxers Bigfoot skeptics? Or, are they just believers who are confident that the real thing won't be confirmed in their lifetime? Maybe many of the physical hoaxes (footprints, etc.) were actually created by those who claim to have stumbled upon them in the wilderness. In that case, you can claim innocence of being the hoaxer (I wasn't the one who created the fake tracks) if Bigfoot is later confirmed and has feet that are obviously different than the prints you "found".

Meldrum and other Bigfoot believers can continue to rest their case in confidence ad infinitum, because Bigfoot can never be proven to not exist no matter how long we go on without any confirmation. There has never been a confirmation in North America (let alone anywhere else... i.e. Yeti, Orang Pendak, etc.) to this date, but that doesn't automatically mean that this (these) creature does not exist. This fact can bolster a kind of confident demeanor to any believer, no matter how extraordinary or ridiculous their own claims may be.

When Bipto says that anatomy experts see the PGF as being a real animal, he is telling a kind of lie. He is a preacher telling the choir that all of the smart people think the PGF is real. Are there no "anatomy experts" in the world that think Patty is a guy in a suit? Why didn't Bipto instead say that "Some anatomy experts..."?

Are we being led to think that everyone who has ever had an opinion about Bigfoot or the PGF has already put their views on record? Or, is Bipto sort of acting like PT Barnum would?

 

[LTC8K6]

Might the legend be based on dinosaur fossils?

Even if based on something concrete, the legends are still incorrect, aren't they. There still weren't any of whatever the legend became, right?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I think Patterson was a cowboy with Hollywood dreams, trying to make a Bigfoot documentary ..

He made a costume to include it in the piece ..

After he shot the Patty footage, he decided ' what the hell ', I just might be able to make enough people think this is real, or keep em' guessing long enough, to make some money ,,

The rest is history ..

Patterson didn't have to hoax anyone... They hoaxed themselves...

I think the missing footage would shed some light on this.. Maybe not BH getting into the costume, but maybe some Patty feet prints/casts, before he filmed Patty ...

 

[Melissa]

Diogenes, Your post was never deleted from the forum. The admin and I decided a long time ago to never delete a post. All I did do was remove it from view - as I didn't think it was appropriate to make you a spectacle, kinda what your doing to me here. And to prove that - I have made that thread visible for all to see, by clicking THIS link. If you would prefer I can make it invisible again - I did that to keep your embarrassment to a minimum. No one would have ever known... I'm really not as heartless as you think.

You were not the only person who was suspended that week - and I didn't want to suspend anyone. Thats not why I created a website for discussion.

I appreciate your apology, its over now and I would prefer to move forward. I apologize if the rules were not clear enough.

 

[William Parcher]

Bigfoot must be real, because thousands of people have said that they have seen it. These are the kinds of good credible people that each one of us has sipped coffee with, and would trust to babysit our children. Even if only one of them is accurate... then Bigfoot does exist.

How can any person think that every single Bigfoot eyewitness that ever existed was wrong or lying?