• 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.
LTC8K6 said:
WP, Dahinden accepted it, and John Green even wrote a tribute authenticating Marx's video.
Click to expand...

Interesting. It seems that Byrne had employed Marx as a Bigfoot searcher. Soon after presenting Byrne with a copy of this film, it was found to be staged. Yet there is no mention by Byrne that the suit itself caused any skepticism. It was the film location and shadows that initially revealed the hoax. Then it gets really bizarre...

Read this letter from Peter Byrne about Ivan Marx.

What I find fascinating about Marx's YouTube clip (from his 1976 film The Legend of Bigfoot) is that it seems to be a mockumentary about Bigfooters and what they believe. As his Bigfoot is limping he says "Here was the domed head just as others had described it." Yet he doesn't say anything such as "...domed head just as we see in Patterson's film." Was Marx always just a strong BF skeptic who took money and played tricks on the Bigfooters?
 
Dishonesty--How Can I Trust You Now?

Correa Neto said:
It seems you missed for some reason this link:
http://www.gorillamen.com/
Go to the galleries section. You'll find those (as well as many other pictures) organized according to the films (year included) they featured.


The key word here is appears. Its appears for you (and some other people) that features seen in the film are moving muscles. For me (and some other people) they are the result of poor image quality combined with patterns created by light an shadow. I will write again: You are making statements based solely in your perceptions. Perceptions, in this case, are a poor excuse for evidence. Human perceptions are far from being flawless and are subject to be highly influenced by personal bias. Given PGF quality and background, your perception, your interpretation are far from being enough for you to say I or anyone else am being dishonest because I do not agree with what you say. Again, what you are saying is not an argument, its just an ad hom.

Lets suppose you are correct and P&G lacked the skills needed to build such a suit. Is there any reason to suppose they could not have bought or rented and eventually modified a costume?

If those suits were filmed under the same conditions of PGF (lack of resolution, lightining, shaky camera) and eventually submitted to similar image enhancements, I think the (or lack of) features seen would be quite similar.
Click to expand...

your interpretation are far from being enough for you to say I or anyone else am being dishonest because I do not agree with what you say
Click to expand...

HOW CAN I TRUST YOU WHEN YOU'RE BLATANTLY DISHONEST?

That last statement is exactly what I'm talking about. It's deceptive, dishonest and misleading. I never once said someone is dishonest simply because they don't agree with me. I never even hinted at such a thing! That statement smacks of one of the immature maneuvers I saw earlier in this thread.

What I said is that anyone who "plays blind" to things that are plainly there is intellectually dishonest. If you were to say, look at my nose, and I played "blind" and said, "I don't see it," that would be devious and deceptive.

If the object was fuzzy and hard to to see, the "I don't see it" would be understandable. But to deny the obvious, on purpose, is to be dishonest, and therefore you're unworthy of trust.

If you're gonna make up statements that I never said, how can I be sure that anything you say is true? I can't. You just proved that you are dishonest and not worthy of trust. If you'll be dishonest with these petty issues, you'll be dishonest in weightier matters too.
 
Last edited:
Marx seems to have made multiple filmings of Bigfoot. What we see in that YouTube clip doesn't match Byrne's description (three 10-second cuts, and BF walks under a tree), and may also not have been what Green & Dahinden saw that convinced them of authenticity.

These may be stills from what those three guys saw in 1971...

marx_bigfoot.jpg

marxbigfoot.jpg
 
SweatyYeti said:
I simply responded to your question to Lyndon, concerning the validity of using "evidence for alien civilizations" as a comparison to "evidence for Bigfoot".
Click to expand...
How interesting that a person who engages in so many semantic games would boldly change 'alien visitors' to 'alien civilizations'. Why would you do that? You can understand there is a big difference, can't you? I asked Lyndon if he could argue against the fact that claims of bigfoot and claims of alien visitors are based on the same kinds of evidence. Proposing that there are alien civilizations and that there are alien visitors on Earth are two very different things. We have/have had formal government-funded searches for alien civilizations. We have/have had no such thing for alien visitors, And no, Project whatever doesn't count.
I supplied a picture of what appears to be....and looks amazingly like....ruins of a square building on Mars.
Click to expand...
You revealed just how woo you are.
I called it ruins of a building .....because it looks, in every respect, exactly like the ruins of a building.
I don't know that it actually is, but you don't know that it isn't.
Therefore, you have no legitimate reason to accuse me of lying. It looks much more like a structure than it does natural geology....so I refer to it as just that.....a structure.

I had every intention of letting people know that it's located on Mars....so, again, you have no legitimate reason to accuse me of "playing games".
I posted the picture to show that there is indeed evidence of alien civilization beyond the Earth. In addition to that square, straight-sided formation, there are plenty more formations on Mars which are similar, in that they have a very high degree of both regularity and geometric shape...which is very rare for natural formations.

The square formation in that picture is evidence of alien civilization.....just as Bigfoot sighting reports from many thousands of people are evidence of an unproven creature living in the wild.
Click to expand...
:nope: You lied, straight up. Trying to act like you didn't is just more deception. If you weren't intent on deception you would have said something to the effect of "does anybody want to take a guess of where this photo of what I believe appears to be the ruins of a building was taken?" But you didn't. You didn't because you were playing silly games trying to score points on skeptics. Of course you had every intention of letting people know it was on Mars. You'd do so pointing your finger and ridiculing people who gave terrestrial suggestions going on the assumption that it was indeed a manufactured structure. Then you'd claim how their suggestions only support the idea of that being the image of a manufactured structure. Then you'd go into a little troll dance of glee. You play these annoying little stupid games all the time.

That's fine because you got the rug pulled out from under you this time. I couldn't have asked for a better demonstration of how far gone many footers are with what they submit as evidence than your terrific show of ignorance with your woo woo Mars theories.

Pure Sweat...


Way to go.:dig:
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
The picture you're talking about, that's "similar" to the anomaly in the Mars image is not in the least bit comparable.
I don't have time right now to get into the details....plus I'm in a race at the moment to get over to the other forum.....the one that doesn't reek of BS, like this one does.
Click to expand...
Pure Sweat. Diogenes' sig is glowing.
(snip)...you never did answer my question...
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 
Diogenes said:
Thanks for taking some time to explain where you are coming from ..

I can be sort of hit –and- run myself, but I’m sure you can understand it gets a little old, going
over the same stuff again and again.

I know going through this whole thread can be daunting; I doubt there are more than a few dozen
posts that are really worthwhile. But it is just as hard for me to go back and pick them out as it
would be for you .. Try to take some time to skim through it when you have a chance,
If you look at my first post in this thread, I think you can see I approached this with a pretty open
mind. I hadn’t decided for sure it was a costume . I really hadn’t given much thought to the
Bigfoot question at all ..


Also try to brouse through the ‘ Simple Challenge ‘ thread ..

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70782



To address the point that I quoted you on above .. “ .. The man in a suit theory seems forced .. “

Think about it this way ..

If there is no Bigfoot, and I believe the overwhelming lack of verifiable evidence, leans in that
direction, then Patty has to be a suit .. If that is the case, to what degree people think it looks like
a suit , is really beside the point …

Take a look at some of the topics I started over at BFF ..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index....c385b58b7&search_in=topics&result_type=topics

It is very hard to find any of the strong proponents, conceding that my observations had any merit at all .
About the closest any of them ever come to agreeing with the flaws I point out, is that it must be an anomaly with the film ..

But on the other hand, you will see that very few members at BFF argue for the authenticity of the PGF at all.
This Is because they realize without a Body, or the costume, it will always remain inconclusive, and it is not good evidence of anything except the ability of the human mind to see what it wants to see.

Here is one more problem I have with the PGF that I feel argues against it being a real Bigfoot.
If Roger Patterson believed he filmed a real Bigfoot, he was well aware that tracking it down would be worth far more than this little piece of film.
It is clear that he made virtually no effort at all to track down this, or any other Bigfoot after he offered this film as the real thing.
All the lame excuses in the world do nothing to counter this fact.

Oh, and one more of my favorite observations..

If there are Bigfeet, they may very well look like a bad fur suit .. All we need to do is find one...
Click to expand...

I'll do it Diogenes. It may take me a while, (I've got some issues to deal with on the homefront), but I'll skim the thead and view the links you provided. You have my word.
 
Teresa Hall wrote:
You can snugglebunny up with LAL in my ignored list.
Click to expand...

Teresa can't support her accusations against me....but she can run and hide.
She's not the only one who's chosen to ignore questions concerning accusations against my character.

All it serves is to show her lack of personal integrity.....she throws mud and runs. :)
 
kitakaze wrote:
How interesting that a person who engages in so many semantic games would boldly change 'alien visitors' to 'alien civilizations'. Why would you do that? You can understand there is a big difference, can't you?
Click to expand...

Well, as my great-grandma Willamina ALWAYS said....."Aliens is Aliens!" :rolleyes:

Why don't you go find a few pictures of "rocks" on this planet that can compare to the anomalous "rocks" on Mars?

You know the old saying, kitty..."put-up or shut-up". ;)
 
I have a confession to make, folks.

My name is Drapier, and I am a troll enabler. I have tasted the sweet, sweet bait that the troll has extended to me, and let me tell you the bait tasted good. The headiness of my response, the feeling of vindication, the thought that maybe, just maybe, I've made a point that made a difference.

But, oh, the aftermath, the morning after, the self-recrimination!

I read this thread and see that my response may have encouraged others to follow the same iniquitous path that I followed.

I forsake my ways!

May that paranormal Bigfoot in the sky, or in the forests, or on the rocky, barren plains of Mars grant that others may learn from my sorrow.

A thing grows upon what it feeds.
 
Last edited:
Well in Sweaty. I can't believe the simple minds of some of the folks here. Snitch (kitakaze) was the one who bloody brought up the question of aliens in the first place in an attempt to make an equation with bigfoot and then when you simply and innocently attempt to play his game you are roundly attacked and admonished for it.

The hypocricy here continues to amaze me every time I visit.
Click to expand...

I can smell the hypocrisy now. Where was shark boy when Sweaty did the 2 frame animation shuffle and guffaw?
 
Diogenes said:
Thanks for taking some time to explain where you are coming from ..

I can be sort of hit –and- run myself, but I’m sure you can understand it gets a little old, going
over the same stuff again and again.

I know going through this whole thread can be daunting; I doubt there are more than a few dozen
posts that are really worthwhile. But it is just as hard for me to go back and pick them out as it
would be for you .. Try to take some time to skim through it when you have a chance,
If you look at my first post in this thread, I think you can see I approached this with a pretty open
mind. I hadn’t decided for sure it was a costume . I really hadn’t given much thought to the
Bigfoot question at all ..


Also try to brouse through the ‘ Simple Challenge ‘ thread ..

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70782



To address the point that I quoted you on above .. “ .. The man in a suit theory seems forced .. “

Think about it this way ..

If there is no Bigfoot, and I believe the overwhelming lack of verifiable evidence, leans in that
direction, then Patty has to be a suit .. If that is the case, to what degree people think it looks like
a suit , is really beside the point …

Take a look at some of the topics I started over at BFF ..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index....c385b58b7&search_in=topics&result_type=topics

It is very hard to find any of the strong proponents, conceding that my observations had any merit at all .
About the closest any of them ever come to agreeing with the flaws I point out, is that it must be an anomaly with the film ..

But on the other hand, you will see that very few members at BFF argue for the authenticity of the PGF at all.
This Is because they realize without a Body, or the costume, it will always remain inconclusive, and it is not good evidence of anything except the ability of the human mind to see what it wants to see.

Here is one more problem I have with the PGF that I feel argues against it being a real Bigfoot.
If Roger Patterson believed he filmed a real Bigfoot, he was well aware that tracking it down would be worth far more than this little piece of film.
It is clear that he made virtually no effort at all to track down this, or any other Bigfoot after he offered this film as the real thing.
All the lame excuses in the world do nothing to counter this fact.

Oh, and one more of my favorite observations..

If there are Bigfeet, they may very well look like a bad fur suit .. All we need to do is find one...
Click to expand...

I don't think I can do this D. That one link has 126 pages all by itself. Then the BFF thread, and add this thread 150 odd pages alone. I'm gonna have to skim these. Hopefully I won't miss anything important, but that's the best I can do. Maybe if you told me specific spots I should look for. (Just doing my best to keep my word here. I didn't know what I was saying "Yes" to.)
 
Why Patterson Didn't Pursue...

Here is one more problem I have with the PGF that I feel argues against it being a real Bigfoot. If Roger Patterson believed he filmed a real Bigfoot, he was well aware that tracking it down would be worth far more than this little piece of film. It is clear that he made virtually no effort at all to track down this, or any other Bigfoot after he offered this film as the real thing. All the lame excuses in the world do nothing to counter this fact.
Click to expand...

If I recall the scenario correctly, Gimlin got his shotgun out and went to go after the creature, but Patterson called him back because he feared that there may be others around, and he didn't want to be left alone. (It seems his horse had run off...) I also heard that they both tried to follow (on foot?) but the creature's prints went up a steep embankment so they turned back.

I'm not sure how accurate that is, but it's as close as I remember.
 
I wasn't suggesting you do it right away .. Just pick a new page from time to time and look around. We are not going anywhere ...

What do you think is a logical explanation for Patterson ( or Gimlin, (Laverty, Titmus ( supposed expert tracker ? )) not putting more effort into tracking down Patty and her friends, and reaping the money and fame it would bring ?

That Patterson didn't have any funds, is not a very good reason .. He managed for years to pursue his hobby and schemes, by sponging off of others ..
 
Luminous said:
HOW CAN I TRUST YOU WHEN YOU'RE BLATANTLY DISHONEST?

That last statement is exactly what I'm talking about. It's deceptive, dishonest and misleading. I never once said someone is dishonest simply because they don't agree with me. I never even hinted at such a thing! That statement smacks of one of the immature maneuvers I saw earlier in this thread.

What I said is that anyone who "plays blind" to things that are plainly there is intellectually dishonest. If you were to say, look at my nose, and I played "blind" and said, "I don't see it," that would be devious and deceptive.

If the object was fuzzy and hard to to see, the "I don't see it" would be understandable. But to deny the obvious, on purpose, is to be dishonest, and therefore you're unworthy of trust.

If you're gonna make up statements that I never said, how can I be sure that anything you say is true? I can't. You just proved that you are dishonest and not worthy of trust. If you'll be dishonest with these petty issues, you'll be dishonest in weightier matters too.
Click to expand...
It amazes me how predictable some posters are. When the evidence and reasonings presentings are found lacking, they dodge the questions and appeal to ad homs.

I am dishonest?

That was an accusation. Now, prove it.

Or you will follow the path of the other posters that made similar accusations and never managed to back them? I see a pattern here. If you follow it, your next post will contain noting but empty rethoric, evasion attemps and more ad homs.

Surprise me. Prove your claim. Prove I am dishonest. Or retreat and say "I'm sorry".
 
Diogenes said:
I am in the process of getting my own copy of the footage, and will comment more when I have had a chance to look at it..
Click to expand...

Are talking about LMS or an actual copy if the film?

I can't believe that such a convincing looking creature...
Click to expand...

We're in agreement on that...

The P/G story you linked to seems to differ a bit from what I was told. I'll have to check with my source on the conflict and get back to you.
 
Luminous said:
If I recall the scenario correctly, Gimlin got his shotgun out and went to go after the creature, but Patterson called him back because he feared that there may be others around, and he didn't want to be left alone. (It seems his horse had run off...) I also heard that they both tried to follow (on foot?) but the creature's prints went up a steep embankment so they turned back.

I'm not sure how accurate that is, but it's as close as I remember.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the long run. Except for minimal lip service, none of the principles really invested any time and resources to go find the creature they caught on film...... ??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom