• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
tube said:
You know, for every "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science" pro Bigfoot TV show, there must be 20 YouTube videos like this. I have to wonder what kids today must think of Bigfoot simply based on what they are exposed to in popular media.

I have to wonder if the YouTube ridicule factor is so high that 30 years from now, belief in Bigfoot will be like what belief in mermaids or fairies is like now...

But I'm sure that 30 years from now, at least some people will still be telling us about Patty's "moving muscle masses".
Click to expand...

30 years from now? If they don't have a body by then, or at least some footage that is clearer than the PGF, I'll become a skeptic myself.

:boggled:
 
William Parcher said:
Points are usually facts or something that indicates a fact.
Click to expand...

Usually does not mean always.

Yeah, but I should point out to you that sarcasm by a poster on an internet forum (me) won't stop anyone from smashing a Bigfoot with their vehicle, shooting one with a gun, or finding a dead body, etc. Here's some more sarcasm for you...

Binky: Look, there's a dead Bigfoot. Let's get somebody over here to check it out.
Pinky: Yuck it stinks. But we can't just go and tell the world that we finally found Bigfoot.
Binky: Why?
Pinky: Because a guy on JREF is sarcastic and he scares me enough that I fear we will be ridiculed if we call somebody over here.
Binky: You're right, that Parcher dude on JREF with his sarcasm isn't very helpful for finding or classifying Bigfoot. Let's just move on and enjoy our hike and pretend we never saw that dead thing.
Pinky: But we could get rich because nobody has ever presented a Bigfoot body before.
Binky: Look, I've also seen what that Parcher says on the internet and it is terrifying to me. I guess we both agree on that. Let's go.
Pinky: Word!
Click to expand...
.
.
As I said, your sarcasm is useless (it's not scary or terrifying either). If it makes you feel good fine, but personally I prefer a logically structured argument. Can you restate your point without resorting to ridicule? In fact, what is your point?

RayG
 
kitakaze said:
It's good that you apologized and maybe you might think it's asking to much but there's more than a few highly insulting statements you've made that I really wish you'd retract. I think that would go a long way in making it easy for people to start fresh with. Because I'm quite sure that nothing of the kind ever took place can you provide a link to a post from when you first logged on where you felt someone was behaving immaturely or engaging in disingenuous tactics as opposed to objectively trying to address the issues with you?

Here is your fifth post on this forum and your second post in a bigfoot thread which for me dictated the manner in which I would address you thereafter:

Despite what someone like Sweaty might try to imply otherwise, I don't take issue with someone unless they take a tone that warrants it, regardless of what they're talking about, orbs included. IMO, the above post was rude, arrogant, provocative, and highly presumptuous.

Also, you asked to be shown just one suit and Correa showed you many. IMO, intellectually honest would have been to say, "oh wow, there are suits even from much earlier that display the features I'm talking about." Instead, you engaged in moving the goal posts by talking about cost. Nevermind intellectual honesty, for the sake of courtesy and adult conduct I would have also said something to the effect of, "ok, I said you can't show me because they don't exist. I was being presumptuous and arrogant. I'm sorry."

Luminous, I'll spare you a long story but when I first came here I defined myself as a fence-sitter but was still in many ways deeply a proponent. I came here to learn and to see just what evidence could withstand objective scrutiny. I'd be lying if I said I didn't look forward to taking on some poo poo scoffers, too. I became skeptical not because the majority here were but simply because all the things that I felt might have a chance of being reliable evidence fell apart after being pursued and objectively examined. I didn't last as long as I did here before becoming completely skeptical by berating people. When I first came I familiarized myself with the discussion and the people participating and made an effort to be mindful of their experience, how long and how in-depth they've been examining the phenomenom. If you'd really like to discuss the evidence objectively and enjoy yourself here, I recommend you do similar. If you just want to talk with fellow believers than there's nothing to stop you from going back to the BFF. However, I don't think that's why you're here. Why do you think you're here.
Click to expand...

Another Apology

I think I missed this. Yes, I have to agree with you once again. Looking back, I see that I was arrogant and presumptuous. For some reason I had the impression that this was a place full of "fits" and "fights," so I guess I had my "boxing gloves" on. I ask you pardon my ignorance once again.

Intellectual Dishonesty

But I do feel that some are being intellectually dishonest when they say, "I don't see it," to something that is plainly there.

It's one thing to say that when the object in question is obscured or blurry, but to say that about something that is in pain view is simply devious. That would be like me saying to you, "I don't see your nose," when you've asked me to look at it. I couldn't in good faith continue in conversation with such a person because they are dishonest and therefore untrustable.

Saying that Patty does not appear to have muscle tone is dishonest IMO. Acknowledging that she does appear to have muscle tone, and then saying, "but I believe the muscle tone is made from foam and cloth," would indicate to me that the skeptic is intellectually honest and therefore trustable. As long as I am intellectually honest too, we could then proceed to have great and memorable debate.

Concerning The Ape Suits

As for the suits I was genuinely surprised to see what Hollywood was making back then. (Though I don't remember seeing anything that proved the dates of these suits.)

Nevertheless, those pictures of the ape costumes made me even more suspicious because it now appears that Patterson had the skill to build an anatomically correct costume, complete with short hair, and what appears to be all the major muscle groups, moving breasts, jiggling flesh, super-long arms with moving digits and human-like feet, that supposedly left prints that were deeper than a human could make.

This would mean that Patterson would have had to have been a better costume maker than anyone in Hollywood at that time. Somehow that just doesn't sit right with me.
 
Luminous said:
Another Apology
Nevertheless, those pictures of the ape costumes made me even more suspicious because it now appears that Patterson had the skill to build an anatomically correct costume, complete with short hair,
Click to expand...
Some short, some long .. ( The hair on the butt doesn't look so short .. )

and what appears to be all the major muscle groups,
Click to expand...

The groups are there, but the details are not morphologically sound.

moving breasts,
Click to expand...
They really don't move like they should .. If you look real close at the MKD footage, the left one bounces a bit; but when Patty swings around to face the camera, those boobs should swing with her.. They don't ..

jiggling flesh,
Click to expand...
Pads can jiggle..
super-long arms
Click to expand...
They are a few inches longer than average.. Easily accounted for by rubber hands that extend 6 inches beyond the finger tips of the wearer..

with moving digits
Click to expand...
We see a slight bend that can be accounted for by a change in camera angle . Individual digits are not discernible .

and human-like feet, that supposedly left prints that were deeper than a human could make.
Click to expand...
Humans don't have a mid-tarsal break .. And human feet of people that go barefoot all their life, look a lot different than the pristine feet we see on Patty.

naturalfeet.jpg


Oh, and while you are at it; do you think elephants leave particularly deep foot prints ? ( Just something for you to look into, before you make assumptions about how body weight affects footprint depth .. )

Oh, and just one more thing.. We don't see Patty making any footprints in the film we are talking about..

This would mean that Patterson would have had to have been a better costume maker than anyone in Hollywood at that time. Somehow that just doesn't sit right with me.
Click to expand...

I must have missed where you have shown us some Bigfoot costumes, circa 1967 ....

Can we see those again ?
 
William Parcher said:
When?
...because if you look at all of the other Bigfoot costumes that Hollywood was making in 1967, you can see that they all suck. Lummi, you are now able to post pictures of the other 1967 Bigfoot costumes to show us all just how sucky they were. Don't show those gorilla costumes, because we are talking about Bigfoot costumes produced by the skilled trade in Hollywood in 1967.
Click to expand...

Are you serious?There weren't any.
 
tube said:
I remember being involved in a long drawn out debate on Bigfoot Forums about the "Minnesota Iceman". Having been a sideshow performer, it was immediate and obvious to me what the equation really was. Yet Ivan 15-foot-penguin Sanderson and his partner Heuvelmans were able to frame the debate in the popular media. Thus, skeptics were forced to react to claims about things as esoteric as "agouti" hair...
Click to expand...

That was mostly me vs. tube and wolftrax. Would anyone like the link?

I used to have a squirrel monkey with agouti hair. What's esoteric about that?
 
Last edited:
William Parcher said:
Again you miss the opportunity to mention that Sweety's behavior here might be energized by LAL's posted support of him. She doesn't seem to think he is as bad as you do. It seems that Lu eggs him on to act like he does here. She never even asks him to be more civil or anything like that when she blows her kisses to him.
Click to expand...

I'm not the kiss-blowing type, Parcher.

I've never even asked you to be more civil when you were at your insulting worst, have I? In fact, I pointed SY to this and a few other boards when he couldn't post on BFF anymore. I figured he could give as good he often gets here without fear of banishment, since mockery and ridicule seem to be the order of the day.

Remember the pamphlets?

I don't egg him on and I don't try to restrain him. Why should I?

For the most part I duck out when the flame wars start, but I've seen SY called a troll, repeatedly, and I've been called considerably worse. I think if you'll take an honest look at past posts (including your own) you'll see the proponents can't hold a candle to the scoftics when it comes to being downright rude.

For one thing, there aren't enough of us.
 
It seems probable to me that Patterson could have had plans and probably a suit for his documentary. He would have wanted "bigfoot" to be in his film. It was unlikely that he'd get film of a real one. So, it seems likely to me that at the very least he figured on putting a fake bigfoot in his documentary.

We know that he practiced pouring casts into fake footprints for the movie.

In fact we don't know that the film of prints and casts isn't his rehearsal.

It doesn't seem that big of a stretch to me to think that Patterson was figuring out a suit for a guy to wear in his documentary to show what bigfoot was like.

It seems logical that if you are making a documentary that you want to show the subject of that documentary in your film, and when it's very unlikely that the real subject will appear, you'd have a backup.

Roger can't have bet the farm that he'd get film of a real one.
 
Luminous said:
Tube, I just want to apologize for coming across so judgmental and arrogant in this post. I really had no right rebuking you like that.
Click to expand...

Would you mind retracting that apology? I think you hit the nail right on the head.
 
Sorry, but I'm not convinced at all...

Diogenes said:
Some short, some long .. ( The hair on the butt doesn't look so short .. ) The groups are there, but the details are not morphologically sound.
They really don't move like they should .. If you look real close at the MKD footage, the left one bounces a bit; but when Patty swings around to face the camera, those boobs should swing with her.. They don't ..

Pads can jiggle..

They are a few inches longer than average.. Easily accounted for by rubber hands that extend 6 inches beyond the finger tips of the wearer..

We see a slight bend that can be accounted for by a change in camera angle . Individual digits are not discernible .

Humans don't have a mid-tarsal break .. And human feet of people that go barefoot all their life, look a lot different than the pristine feet we see on Patty.

[qimg]http://www.shoebusters.com/naturalfeet.jpg[/qimg]

Oh, and while you are at it; do you think elephants leave particularly deep foot prints ? ( Just something for you to look into, before you make assumptions about how body weight affects footprint depth .. )

Oh, and just one more thing.. We don't see Patty making any footprints in the film we are talking about..

I must have missed where you have shown us some Bigfoot costumes, circa 1967 ....

Can we see those again ?
Click to expand...

No offense intended, but I'm not convinced even slightly by your arguments.

Forgive me for the directness of my response, but I have to ask: how would you know that certain muscle groups were not morphologically sound? Have you closely examined the muscle groups of this yet to be cataloged creature? How exactly would you determine soundness if what you're looking at is still yet undiscovered? Do you happen to have one of these creatures in your basement to compare it to?

How would you know Patty's breasts don't move correctly. According to what? What do you have to compare them to? If her pecs were solid muscle, like say on a female body builder with big breasts, they wouldn't be doing a whole lotta swinging, even when she turns. Do a little investigating and you'll find that I'm right.

Pads can jiggle? What exactly were these "pads" made of? Gel? I doubt it in 67. Foam? That doesn't jiggle. Rubber? That jiggles. But where would Patterson get the money to have anatomically correct rubber muscles made? No sir, Patty's jiggle is so more lifelike than even rubber. That's because it's flesh we're looking at.

The long forearms made out of gloves would have proven that Patty was a hoax years ago. The part that makes this so amazing is that the humerus is unusually long too, keeping both arms in perfect proportion. How did Patterson lengthen the humerus too? He didn't because it's impossible.

Individual digits are not discernible? Did you watch the same MK Davis flick that I did on this very thread? It clearly showed the thumb moving. So you still think these were rubber gloves six inches longer than the fingers of the wearer? I'd rethink that one real quick. If his fingers were six inches from the "glove" just how did BH move his thumb as we saw so clearly in the MK Davis flick?

Just how did you come to the conclusion that Patty had pristine feet? We're you somehow able to zoom in at a distance no one else has been able to and examine them? Or are you basing your idea on pictures of barefoot native HUMANS? You seem to keep forgetting that this is no human we're dealing with. It's an unknown species. So you think that the toes are not spread out far enough for a spices with five toes that walks barefoot all the time? How would you know? These are nothing but assumptions, and poor ones at that.

If Patterson wanted to hoax convincingly, he would have used long hair to cover up the various zippers, or latches that would be needed to cause the suit to cling tightly to the BH's body. If that was a suit, it was no throw on. It would have taken a decent amount of time to get it to cling tightly to the body. What fool would use short hair and risk these elements being seen?

As for the "suit," I don't believe Patterson was capable of building a suit that rivals the costumes that were posted on this tread a few days ago. He didn't have the money or skills to create a suit that contains all the features I described in the post above. In my opinion, if that was a suit, he put the Hollywood costume makers to shame. (I'm talking about the gorilla costumes and muscular blue lizard man etc.) He created a superior suit and that with virtually no money? Very unlikely.

So we don't see Patty make footprints? I saw her foot hit the ground repeatedly. Better yet, we even have a still of the bottom of her foot. So what's your point? You find it suspicious that the prints that were cast matched her foot perfectly?

Good try, but there is nothing you said that the flesh and blood theory can't account for.

With all respect, I now conclude.

Thanks for sharing,

Luminous
 
Last edited:
2-4 inch long hair would hide anything Patterson needed to hide, and Patterson twice reported her hair was that long.

It clearly showed the thumb moving.
Click to expand...

Well, it didn't clearly show anything at all, actually. Except an upright hairy biped.

Had I not told you about the thumb, and had the section not been blown up and pointed out to you, I wonder if you'd have thought it showed a thumb?
 
Patty had one fairly pristine foot and one block foot, which are indeed pretty clearly visible in stills that have been posted here recently.

We also have casts attributed to Patty by which we can say her feet were fairly pristine in comparison to feet that have been outdoors for years.

Personally, I think the still with the "perfect" foot is probably doctored.
 
LTC8K6 said:
2-4 inch long hair would hide anything Patterson needed to hide, and Patterson twice reported her hair was that long.
Well, it didn't clearly show anything at all, actually. Except an upright hairy biped.

Had I not told you about the thumb, and had the section not been blown up and pointed out to you, I wonder if you'd have thought it showed a thumb?
Click to expand...

How do you know 2 inch hair is able to hide any clasps or zippers etc.? Have you personaly seen a suit with these specs? Truthfully, it sounds like you're making stuff up as you go. What is the source of your information?

Yes you can clearly see the moving thumb. There is nothing unclear about it. And yes I would have seen it even if you had not pointed it out. It's VERY clear. Your blatant denial of what is clear to see smacks of the dishonesty I warned about. Major Red flag.
 
Luminous said:
Okay, could someone finally cue me in to this mystery cat thing? I still have no idea what that was all about. Who is seeing a dog? I seem to be missing some key information here. What's the point?
Bump
Click to expand...

There was another thread here that proved the pig headed scoftical stubborness of most of the people posting here.

The subject turned to alien out of place cats in Britain. These have been bona fide proven. There is no argument against it. Pumas and Lynx etc have been caught and/or shot running around Britain. I posted the pictures and the links showing this but still the scoftics tried their best to ignore these bona fide caught and shot examples and poo poo all witness reports of out of place cats and to insist every single picture of a possible large cat were nothing more than moggies or fakes etc. I agreed that a lot of them were, but not all.

They even gaffawed and laughed at these stills of an OBVIOUS out of place big cat and claimed it was either a moggy or even a dog. A dog???? A dog for crying out loud????? This is what we are dealing with here. This animal had been repeatedly sighted in the area over a considerable time and so had multiple independant witness reports to go along with the footage taken. Anybody who knows anything about scale and wildlife can see this animal is larger than a moggy and is most certainly not a dog.

http://www.scottishbigcats.co.uk/fentigertext.htm

A scoftic then demanded I give the opinions of any zoologists regarding the footage. I did so. I gave the opinions of a zoologist on this very subject and posted an article where the zooologist said in his opinion it's a large alien cat and not a moggy or a dog. In an attempt to get me into trouble by the admin I was then reported for posting a whole article because they didn't like the fact that I was proving my case. The reportee then sniggered and mocked that he had just reported me and didn't even attempt to respond to the points raised. I was a newbie at the time and didn't know posting whole articles was against the rules here. It was an innocent oversight. I told the reportee to go shove his report up his arse and that rather than reporting me he could have just nicely told me that I should edit my post seeing as I wasn't fully aware of all the rules here. Another scoftical poster who wasn't even posting in that thread then decided to double report me in an attempt to get me banned simply for telling the poster to go shove his report up his arse. This poster then proceeded to carry out the same kind of obnoxious behaviour he accused me of. He still does it. You may know this poster. I call him Snitch. He is otherwise known as Kitakaze.

Anyway, regardless of the tactics the scoftics often use here to try and save face, the person who demanded I post a zoologist's opinion on the stills/footage then tried to discredit the zoologist claiming the zoologist in question didn't know what he was talking about. So.............they want the views of the professionals but when those professionals have views that go against what they want to hear they then turn to trying to discredit and poo poo those same professionals.

This is EXACTLY what happens with regards to bigfoot/sasquatch. You really can't make all this stuff up, luminous. I got the number of these folks pretty quickly after I joined. They wouldn't last 5 minutes in the real world using those kind of tactics.
 
Last edited:
kitakaze said:
This 'pathetic faggot' disagrees.
Click to expand...

The 'spaz' disagrees further Snitch. You know, the 'spaz' who you reported and tried to get banned for being rude. Remember?? You then proceeded to behave in exactly the same manner you reported me for earlier.

LOL.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom