Simple Challenge For Bigfoot Supporters

[carcharodon]

What if you had brought up Nessie?

I have done. Most don't poo poo it outright and snigger. Most people I have spoken to think there might be something to it, even if it might not be all it's cracked up to be. There ar some who think it's all nonsense but I wouldn't say they are the majority.

If you took a poll of a hundred people the majority would 'believe' in at least one of the following....God, ghosts, clairvoyants, ESP, Bigfoot, UFOs etc etc, or at least give them the benefit of the doubt and not poo poo them outright. Most people are not ultra scoftics. They no more represent the general public than 'woos' do.

So, BTW, with the scoftic whining I was wondering if you could point out the posts where we dismiss off-hand the possibility of bigfoot existence.

Look around. They are everywhere. The sniggering and sarcastic comments are ten a penny.

What do you base such speculation on?

My experience here in the alien big cat debates. It was like banging my head against a brick wall. You can't reason with ultra scoftics.

 

[carcharodon]

"I was totally convinced no one could fool me. And of course I’m an older man now ... and I think there could have been the possibility [of a hoax]. But it would have to be really well planned by Roger [Patterson]."

Gimlin seems have come to the conclusion that maybe he could have been fooled, that there was the possibility of a hoax. With age comes wisdom perhaps. How is that out of context when discussing Mr. Gimlin's opinion?

RayG

Talk about cutting the conversation to suit your point. You neglected to mention that the guy on the phone (Chris Packham) was the one who SPECIFICALLY ASKED Gimlin if he thought it was possible he could have been hoaxed. Gimlin didn't come out with the point himself.

The interview was from X-Creatures by the BBC and the whole interview wasn't played in that programme. It was cut and chopped and Packham kept in only what he wanted to keep in. We are not shown the parts of the interview where Gimlin related the events and his opinions off his own back. They are brushed over and edited out.

Packham then ASKED Gimlin if he thought it was 'possible' he could have been fooled. Gimlin didn't come out with it off his own back. Gimlin reluctantly responded that he 'supposed' it was possible he could have been fooled*. He didn't say he thinks that was the case and his tone of voice left the viewer in no doubt that Gimlin thought the subject was authentic. He also claimed if it was somebody in a suit that the person was taking an 'awful big risk with his life' because had it rushed him he would have shot it with his loaded 30-06.

Gimlin has never wavered in his opinion that he thinks the subject was a real sasquatch. Bottom line is that Bob Gimlin is still claiming what he saw was a real sasquatch and he has NEVER changed from that position.


*Of course, it is also 'possible' it was Steven Spielberg behind the camera, so that's neither here nor there.

 

[carcharodon]

In the earliest interviews with P&G (1967/68) they say that the encountered Patty at 1:30pm and (in some interviews, but not all) tracked her for 3.5 miles after she split. Then when Gimlin was interviewed by Green in 1992, he said that they encountered Patty "perhaps a little bit after noon time".

1.30 isn't 'a lot' after noon is it??? Not as if it was 5 hours or so.

No mention of 3.5 miles, and instead Gimlin said "Then we tracked on up the creek bed quite a ways. We saw one wet half of a footprint on a rock as it went up into the mountains and that was as far as we went with it."

Well isn't 3.5 miles "quite a ways"? I would say so.


Where are the contradictions here Parcher??? I mean, it's not like the contradictions about what the suit looked like, what it was built from and how it was put on etc etc.

Changing stories? Backtracking on stories? Bad recollection? Not caring anymore about what you told the world back then?

None of the above apply to Patterson and Gimlin. They do apply to Bob Hieronimus though......often.

Pattycakes are calling for Heironimus' head for these same "crimes" of testimony. But Gimlin gets a free pass.

Difference is, Gimlin and Patterson's accounts do not differ greatly in all the important aspects of the claim. Bob Heironimus' claims are all over the place. More importantly he's not the right size and shape to have been the man in the suit and he doesn't even walk like 'Patty' when he tries.

Watch the videos. I see there have been NO comments on them so far. Typical. Here they are again. Here's Bob H NOT walking with the same bent legged gait as Patty:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCzR...m/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Here's the 'wunerful' Patty replication (*sniggers*)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMPm...m/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Here's a close up. Looks like a brown Tellytubby:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYuS...m/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

If those links don't work, click on this:

http://www.mid-americabigfoot.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

 

[carcharodon]

Subjective.

Not subjective at all. Its a fact.

How does a sasquatch move?
How do you know a sasquatch moves the way Patty moves?

I didn't say I know a sasquatch moves the way Patty moves. I said the subject in the P/G footage moves more fluidly and naturally than any other man in an ape man suit. The movements of the subject in the P/G footage do not look false and awkward, which of course all bipedal man in ape suit do. This is because they are trying to be something they are not. They are false and they move awkwardly. Patty doesn't. Patty moves like a natural creature not a falsified one. We know how falsified bipedal ape man/bigfoot subjects walk and move......and they don't move like Patty.

 

[carcharodon]

To be precise, Heironimus said, in his interview with Long (The Making of Bigfoot, pg.345):

"Roger told my brother Howard he made the whole thing out of horsehide. Roger had skinned a dead, red horse and attached or glued fur from an old fur coat onto the horsehide skin."

On pg. 344, he says:

"My feet slipped into the feet of the suit I think the feet were made of old houseslippers you used to see around, that looked like big feet with toes in them."

And, on pg. 346:

"The head fits on next. I think the head was made out of a, it seemed to me...like an old time football helmet."

Enter Morris in the final chapter.

Correction: Long phoned Morris on November 26, 2003. Morris had stated he'd sold a gorilla suit to Roger Patterson - and that the suit ended up in Patterson's bigfoot film in a Charlotte (WBT-AM) radio show, August 16, 2002.

He describes the six-piece Dynel suit in detail on pg. 449 - 450. It had a 36" zipper running down the back.

Heironimus described a slip-on torso, that was like putting on a T-shirt (pg. 345).

Shall I go on?

Thanks Lu. I knew William Parcher was feeding us duff information when he claimed Hieronumus didn't say "such and such".

I wonder if Will is a paid up member of the Bob Hieronimus Appreciation Society.....membership of one??? Parcher seems to go to extraordinary efforts to back his boy. Still I guess when you put your foot firmly in somebody's camp like he has then there is no way out again and ya gotta save face by stubbornly sticking to your argument....even if it gets sillier by the day.

I see he hasn't commented on the videos yet.

 

[the evilist serene]

If you took a poll of 100 people, I'd bet all 100 would believe in clean, fresh bedsheets.

 

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

Despite all the drilling down into the nuts and bolts of the PG film (and a couple of dubious casts) the fact remains there's absolutely no physical evidence of Bigfoot. At all. Anywhere.

You can argue all day about the film but it will remain unconvincing until such time as a sasquatch family turns up and is shown to the world. A few seconds of grainy, ancient film of dubious authenticity is not the sort of thing you want to be putting all your eggs in, and when all is said and done it's the closest thing to physical evidence you have. That's beyond weak.

I've sat and watched this massive debate rage on as one opinion is countered with another, but it still boils down to opinions as there's no evidence to be found. I hate to sound like this, but I think it would be better if the BF supoorters club would go hunting for them rather than bugging the rest of the world with anecdotes, hoaxes and wishful thinking. Until they turn up an unknown species of massive biped they're just going to be farting against thunder.

 

[LTC8K6]

The movements of the subject in the P/G footage do not look false and awkward

They look like a human, according to some prominent scientists who viewed PGF.

This is subjective as well.

Patty moves like a natural creature not a falsified one. We know how falsified bipedal ape man/bigfoot subjects walk and move......and they don't move like Patty.

We have only one natural creature like Patty to go by. If Patty does not move like that one, how do you know she moves like a natural sasquatch?

We have seen a person quickly pick up Patty's walk recently on a new TV show about the subject.

 

[LTC8K6]

Why hasn't anyone caught another sasquatch on camera out lollygagging around in the sunshine?

 

[kitakaze]

So, BTW, with the scoftic whining I was wondering if you could point out the posts where we dismiss off-hand the possibility of bigfoot existence.

Look around. They are everywhere. The sniggering and sarcastic comments are ten a penny.

I didn't think so. Just one post. You can't even be bothered to qualify your assertion by providing one post in which one of us off-handedly dismisses the possibility of sasquatch existence. Typical. You can't even be bothered to cite this 'good evidence' you talk of.

 

[kitakaze]

(and there IS good evidence, no matter what the scoftics here say)

What evidence would that be?

RayG

You know full well what it is. There is plenty of it. You have been shown it. However, you and ultra scoftics like you want the proof before you want the evidence. The evidence doesn't interest you. Only the proof does. You want proof first, evidence later. You have it bass ackwards, as our old friend SY is fond of saying.

Hmm... good evidence and plenty of it? I guess it shouldn't be too hard to qualify that statement here since you made it here. Typical.

 

[Yeah_Right]

Why hasn't anyone caught another sasquatch on camera out lollygagging around in the sunshine?

Well they are supposed to be largely nocturnal, even though I have heard of Rene Dahinden hunting for them in broad daylight, curious.

 

[Yeah_Right]

Hmm... good evidence and plenty of it? I guess it shouldn't be too hard to qualify that statement here since you made it here. Typical.

Surely you don't want to rehash the so called "reliable evidence", the pattycakes and footers have already presented in this forum? I betcha in another 40 years this very same stuff will be debated on the internet. Where's that BF body again? Not holding my breath.

 

[Yeah_Right]

I have done. Most don't poo poo it outright and snigger. Most people I have spoken to think there might be something to it, even if it might not be all it's cracked up to be. There ar some who think it's all nonsense but I wouldn't say they are the majority.

If you took a poll of a hundred people the majority would 'believe' in at least one of the following....God, ghosts, clairvoyants, ESP, Bigfoot, UFOs etc etc, or at least give them the benefit of the doubt and not poo poo them outright. Most people are not ultra scoftics. They no more represent the general public than 'woos' do.

Well of course you'd more than likely get the average person saying that they believe in some rather phenomenal things. But if they were to look at all this stuff closely they'd more than likely think twice about the existence of UFOs or Bigfoot. Or sometimes they'd just say they believe it even if they didn't. That is why opinion polls are not all that reliable.

My experience here in the alien big cat debates. It was like banging
head against a brick wall. You can't reason with ultra scoftics.

Well if there are, supposedly, "alien" big cats roaming about, then I would suspect an escape from a zoo, circus, or some idiot bought one thinking it was a good pet. Nothing too paranormal there. But has someone ever caught one of these large cats? I have to admit I am not to familiar with this subject.

 

[Correa Neto]

Hmm... good evidence and plenty of it? I guess it shouldn't be too hard to qualify that statement here since you made it here. Typical.

Evidence?

You expect two individuals who refuse to back the accusations they made against forum members will be able to provide reliable evidence about bigfoot?

 

[Luminous]

Forgive me for interjecting here. This thread is 123 pages long and I don't have time to read every page. But I'll ask you all this:

Has anyone here actually seen BH dressed up and walking in his Patty suit? I have, and all I can say is that he looked like a fat and furry "teletubby." There was no resemblance at all to the subject RP filmed.

 

[Correa Neto]

Even if the re-enactment used a costume that was not similar to Patty, it still by no means is evidence that PGF subject is not a person wearing a gorilla (OK, bigfoot) costume.

Even if BH admits he lied about being PGF subject, it would still by no means be evidence that Patty is a real bigfoot.

 

[LTC8K6]

Has anyone here actually seen BH dressed up and walking in his Patty suit? I have, and all I can say is that he looked like a fat and furry "teletubby." There was no resemblance at all to the subject RP filmed.

It's been covered here somewhere, I believe. There are other long BF threads. I don't think I have ever seen a Patty suit, save for the one I think is in the PGF.

 

[Luminous]

Patty shows clear and in some places "flexing" muscle tone in the legs, arms, back, gluts, and hands. Show me one gorilla suit from that decade that had those features built in. You can't. Why? Because it doesn't exist. So I guess you'll have to resort to trying to discredit the clearly visible muscle tone. Try as you may, the "I don't see it" argument is a cop out. For every one who says "I don't see it" there are fifty more who say, "I do see it." What can be witnessed with the eyes is far more convincing than empty words. There's a film of this figure, showing exactly what I am describing. What evidence do you bring to the table besides empty words? It's intellectually dishonest to deny what is clearly staring you in the face.

 

[Yeah_Right]

Patty shows clear and in some places "flexing" muscle tone in the legs, arms, back, gluts, and hands. Show me one gorilla suit from that decade that had those features built in. You can't. Why? Because it doesn't exist. So I guess you'll have to resort to trying to discredit the clearly visible muscle tone. Try as you may, the "I don't see it" argument is a cop out. For every one who says "I don't see it" there are fifty more who say, "I do see it." What can be witnessed with the eyes is far more convincing than empty words. There's a film of this figure, showing exactly what I am describing. What evidence do you bring to the table besides empty words? It's intellectually dishonest to deny what is clearly staring you in the face.

Conversely, people saying that they do see the muscle tone could be victims of wishful thinking.