Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
1- Regarding Kitakaze's account, there's at least another JREF member who's skeptic about bigfoot and had an experience that could be interpreted as a bigfoot encounter by some.
2- Regarding Patty's hair, claimed to be so different from gorilla suits (supposed to have long shaggy hair). Lets suppose gorilla suits available to P&G had indeed long shaggy hair. So what? "Hmmm... I think this hair is too long, don't like that look... Hey, pass me that scissors, would you?". Not to mention Ivan Marx's bigfoot also had short hairs...
Thanks for addressing the question. Maybe I should have worded my question more clearly but when I asked 'do you think sasquatches are as widespread as reported?' I didn't mean it as 'what's your take on sightings as a collective body of evidence?' What I mean to ask is that sasquatch encounters are reported all across the NA continent from Alaska to Iowa to New York to Florida. Great White North to Deep South. Rainforest, arctic, desert, swamp, farmland, etc. Do you think that bigfoot inhabits ranges all across the continent?
It appears to be the case if one were to base his view entirely on gathered witness reports. A good majority of them would have to be excluded due to hoaxes and misidentification. Some have suggested that there may even be different spices here and abroad (ie. skunk ape, yeti, almasty, orang pandek etc.) I'm of the opinion that they are probably an endangered species, barely sustaining viable breeding levels. To truly catch sight of one would be a rare event indeed.
Aha! You're going to like this. I was a witness to what I at the time was convinced was a close personal encounter with at least one sasquatch. I'm not going to go into great detail but several years ago while camping with a couple friends in a very remote part of the west coast of Vancouver Island where I grew up I found what appeared to be the clear tracks of a parent and infant sasquatch in the mud by a pond next to a river in the deep forest. Later that night while the three of us were in our tent we heard a cry from across the valley that was then answered very close to our tent. We then had an audio encounter in our immediate proximity with what at the time I could only attribute to a sasquatch. It was an intensely visceral experience to say the least. Nevertheless, in hindsight there are a number of factors that I must consider that make me unable to hold that experience as a genuine encounter. If I had stuck my head out of the tent maybe my feelings would be different. Maybe I wouldn't have a head, maybe I would have seen a large bear, maybe a sasquatch, maybe a bat$#!% crazy potgrower trying to scare us out of the area. Who knows. The point is that it was not reliable evidence for sasquatch. I couldn't reliably exclude a source other than an 8ft hairy bipedal primate. So I'm left to examine the same body of evidence you are and like it or no, not in one case is there a claim where something mundane can reliably be excluded.
I'd stay with pot grower notion. At least you could all get high and imagine that you saw a Bigfoot. You're chances of that happening are better than seeing the real thing. But you didn't answer my question. How many sighting locations and witnesses have you personally investigated?
1- Regarding Kitakaze's account, there's at least another JREF member who's skeptic about bigfoot and had an experience that could be interpreted as a bigfoot encounter by some.
2- Regarding Patty's hair, claimed to be so different from gorilla suits (supposed to have long shaggy hair). Lets suppose gorilla suits available to P&G had indeed long shaggy hair. So what? "Hmmm... I think this hair is too long, don't like that look... Hey, pass me that scissors, would you?". Not to mention Ivan Marx's bigfoot also had short hairs...
From the pictures you and others posted, it seems that Hollywood costume designers preferred longer hair, as I would assume, that it would provide greater cover for the various clasps and zippers they used. In my opinion, it would take a great number of clasps and zippers to cause a suit to cling so tighly to the body, that it would give the effect that it is flesh and fur. That is why Patty is so remarkable. That over two thirds of her body is seen in the film and there is not one zipper or clasp visible, even with her remarkably short hair.
Marx’s 77 costume is a different story, the material appears to be a type of black velvet, stretchable material (probably no hair even involved) The pictures easily hide a probable zipper up the back.
It doesn’t even come close to the complexity of what appears in the P/G film. Patty’s front and back seem to show what appears to be full blown muscle groups, and this without a single clasp or zipper involved. Interesting.
No, you are different from most people so far. And not for the best either. Twice you blatantly lie and make up things that I did not say in order to put me in a negative light, and you go on talking to me as if you've done nothing wrong??? Sorry that BS won't fly around here.
How about an honest admission and apology? Or is that beneath you?
It appears to be the case if one were to base his view entirely on gathered witness reports. A good majority of them would have to be excluded due to hoaxes and misidentification. Some have suggested that there may even be different spices here and abroad (ie. skunk ape, yeti, almasty, orang pandek etc.) I'm of the opinion that they are probably an endangered species, barely sustaining viable breeding levels. To truly catch sight of one would be a rare event indeed.
Regarding Kitakaze's account, there's at least another JREF member who's skeptic about bigfoot and had an experience that could be interpreted as a bigfoot encounter by some.
From the pictures you and others posted, it seems that Hollywood costume designers preferred longer hair, as I would assume, that it would provide greater cover for the various clasps and zippers they used.
Of course longer hairs help hiding seams. But shorter hair can do the trick, as you probably saw in some of the pics and clips I posted and/or linked to. I suggest you to check the videos I linked to. Later today I will post more links to ape suits in action. They all show similarities to Patty.
There's really no need for too lots zippers and clasps; it all depends on how the costume is designed. I can imagine a suit with no zippers at all. A "T-shirt like" upper part, pants, a headpiece with a mask, gloves for hands and padded feet. The seams can be hidden by longer hairs at the joints. Note that even a zipper can be hidden in this way. Specially in the back, where it could be masqueraded by the spinal cord line or even the buttcrack.
Add to this the low resolution of PGF. We can't really be sure about how long or short the hairs were.
In my opinion, it would take a great number of clasps and zippers to cause a suit to cling so tighly to the body, that it would give the effect that it is flesh and fur. That is why Patty is so remarkable. That over two thirds of her body is seen in the film and there is not one zipper or clasp visible, even with her remarkably short hair.
See above regarding zippers, clappers and PGF resolution. Note that there's no need for the suit to be tight to the user's body. Have you forgotten the Gorn suit from Star Trek? Diogenes already posted images of what could be used to give the impression of muscles.
Marx’s 77 costume is a different story, the material appears to be a type of black velvet, stretchable material (probably no hair even involved) The pictures easily hide a probable zipper up the back.
Nope. The stills show short hairs. Yes, he may have used different materials and his bigfoot suit is quite crude when compared to whats seen at PGF. See above regarding zippers. The footage available at youtube is too indistinct to see any details other than clear feet (sometimes pointed as "evidence" Patty is a real animal). The stills however, show greater detail. Had Marx added some material to increase the shoulder's width, the costume would look better.
It doesn’t even come close to the complexity of what appears in the P/G film. Patty’s front and back seem to show what appears to be full blown muscle groups, and this without a single clasp or zipper involved. Interesting.
"I know they're there, and I know that we're going to get one in the next possibly five to ten years or maybe sooner and when we do I think there's going to have to be many people and also scientists maybe eat a little crow." Roger Patterson, November 1967.
"We're going find him. There are thousands of people trying to find this creature all the time. The reason we've had better luck is because we're better organized to stay in the field longer. This last time, we spent almost a month. I had to come back to raise money. The others are still up there, still on the alert. We're close too... damned close!" Tom Biscardi, December 1973.
"I'd say within the next 5 to 10 years some guy driving a logging truck is going to nail one of these suckers and that will put this whole issue to rest for good." Luminous, June 2007.
One thing that must be considered when comparing FX ape costumes with real animals and Patty is exactly what the costumes were intended to represent. Few films intended or aimed towards realism. Out of my mind, I can only recall “Gorillas in the Mist”, “Greystoke” and the standard gorillas from “Congo” (not the carnivorous fictional species), and these are 20 years or so younger than PGF. At most movies chances are some aspects were exaggerated to create certain effects (make the animals more fearsome or more comical, for example). When it comes to “Harry and the Hendersons”, we must never forget it’s a family comedy! A realistic representation of what a bigfoot is supposed to be was not required. The comical aspect is quite clear, at least for me, in the mask. Same is valid for other movies/series; what were the writers and the producers’ conceptions and needs? This will determinate the appearance of the costume. Thus, comparing Harry and the Bigfoot featured at the Six Million Dollars Man as well as other costumes with Patty or conceptions about what bigfeet are supposed to look like (as if there was a consensus) may be tricky. Specially if the person lets his/hers personal bias affect the judgement (example: we already know the movies display fake apes, thus looking for flaws is favored).
With this in mind, we can compare some aspects of suits we see in movies and TV series with some aspects of Patty. It is my personal opinion and impression that all the features we see in Patty are present in many costumes and that some of them are remarkably similar to it, especially when walking on two feet. Of course I can not “prove” it was a costume. All I can do is to point at similarities that for me are a smoking gun that PGF shows nothing but a bloke in a (modified?) gorilla suit. Of course I can not “prove” BH was the bloke-in-the-suit. And even if he was not, smoke keeps coming out of the barrels…
Now, let me show you some more gorilla suits, this time in action. The first ones can not be considered expensive, top-notch, whatever. Please observe that they are by no means supposed to represent, look like or mimic real gorillas. These are bipedal, instead of knuckle-walking animals. The actors seem quite at ease inside the costumes. Note also the hair; it’s not very long at all. At some scenes, it can be seen walking upright not unlike Patty. The costume also displays long forearms (at some scenes; the extensions were added only when there was no need for complex finger movements). At some shots, once could say that bulging muscles are seen. Note that contrary to PGF; here we have “full-frontal” up-close shots where all the costumes flaws are exposed.
Here we have 1976 King Kong. This was an expensive FX costume, but it was also not intended to be the realistic representation of a gorilla (if such a gigantic ape can ever be considered as realistic). The film’s executives considered the initial knuckle-walking costume as not creating the effect they wanted; they ordered it to be more human-like, perhaps to stand taller. It is bipedal, as it can be seen in the clips linked below. Animatronics were used only in some scenes, such as Kong’s hand holding Jessica Lange and a “life-size” prop for the scenes showing Kong chained in front of a crowd. Note the hair flow pattern. It is not shaggy. Some combing and a bit of hairspray can do the trick.
At 2’14” Kong can be seen walking towards the camera; it walks quite like a man, and not unlike Patty at all.
Here comes another gorilla suit from 1976, from the movie A*p*e. This one can not be considered by any means as expensive or “state-of-the-art”. Once again we have a bipedal creature. And once again, the bloke in the gorilla suit seems quite at easy inside it. And the way he moves is not unlike Patty at all. Note the short hairs instead of the shaggy long hairs some say most if not all old gorilla suits had.
At 4’31” there’s something for those who discuss Patty’s moving fingers…
And at 5’08”, it is walking bipedally.
*Note: The comments regarding the way the gorilla suits were made were obtained at documentaries such as “Movie Magic”. Please rent the DVDs for further details and additional information.
If an uncatalogued species does indeed exist in North America, it would make sense that there may be similar species in other parts of the world.
Okay, a question for you. Assuming Patty is a man in a suit, what would that suit look like when broken into pieces --how many pieces were there and how was it all held together?
Notice that both breasts are indeed moving. The left is more obvious, however, because of its placement over a moving backdrop. The right is closer and harder to see because it is backdropped against the fur. But it is clearly moving. Whoever made this an issue simply didn't view the animation long enough, or they didn't take the things I just mentioned into account. IMO this now a non-issue. (For me anyway)
Notice that both breasts are indeed moving. The left is more obvious, however, because of its placement over a moving backdrop. The right is closer and harder to see because it is backdropped against the fur. But it is clearly moving. Whoever made this an issue simply didn't view the animation long enough, or they didn't take the things I just mentioned into account. IMO this now a non-issue. (For me anyway)
There are a number of issues, indeed.
-The shape of the breasts is quite unatural IMHO. Looks more like oversized breast implants (please don't ask for an example; Google Images will provide you the examples and I will not risk being punished by posting nudes here). The "oh, but its an unknown species and we don't know the anatomy" line is not a good way out, since we can compare with the breasts of known female bipedal (Homo Sapiens) and non-bipedal apes (gorillas, orang-utangs, chmipanzees, bonobos). None of them have breasts that look like Pattys boobs IMHO.
-The location of the breasts is a bit strange; they seem to be too low in the chest when compared with known large apes. If the breasts were floppy (the Venus of Willendorf comes to mind), it would be OK, but they for me they seem quite rigid. For this I can present some relatively safe links: http://myweb.dal.ca/mgoodyea/images/BreastpositionbyCupSize.gifhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanner_stage
You can follow the links in Wikipedia's articles for more examples.
This is in stark contrast with Patterson's description. All it takes for one to see first-handed how Patty's breasts are unnatural is to go to the beach...
-Honestly, the breast movement I can see seems to be related/created by the subjects' torso twisting during the exagerated arms swings. The breasts seem to be spinning around a vertical axis (the vertebral column) instead of bouncing during the walk, as I would expect in natural breasts.
-The GIF also shows that the PGF resolution is quite poor; many (perhaps most) of the details pointed as "evidence" of Patty being a real animal are guesstimates at best. Of course, this is also valid for "evidence" such as zippers...
The breasts are not droopy, floppy, pendulous, or pendant, as described by Patterson and Sanderson at various times, even well after they had seen the film.
They move a little, but that's it. Nothing like large natural breasts at all.
My guess is that Roger knows this is a problem, so he covers it up by always saying the breasts are droopy, floppy, pendulous, etc.
The experiences reported by you and Kitakaze would probably be considered as bigfoot encounters by many people. I wonder what would be their rating at BFRO database...
Lesson to be learned by everyone, specially those who consider eyewitnesses reports as reliable data: Beware of your perceptions and bias.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
