• 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.
How about these fingers... I know, they're to blurry so they cannot be there.
 

Attachments

  • fingers2.jpg
    fingers2.jpg
    112.2 KB · Views: 3
Last edited:
Here Patty is giving everyone the finger, the pinky finger that is! :D
 

Attachments

  • pinky.jpg
    pinky.jpg
    114.5 KB · Views: 2
Last edited:
Luminous said:
Why do you think there was no debris?
Click to expand...

Your claims are becoming more ridiculous by the hour. You are entering into desperation mode.

Nobody would say that there isn't wood debris out there in the large clearing at Bluff Creek. But the film itself never shows Patty stepping, jumping or climbing over anything. As far as anyone can tell, she chooses a pathway that doesn't force her to negotiate over any of this stuff. You show still images of debris piles that are so large she would have to climb over them like a monkey or jump like a gazelle. It never happens. The reason is because she walks around them.

You need to learn about how camera lenses cause illusions of depth, and how objects in the foreground can appear to be located at the same position as the subject. You need to watch Patty's head to see that it essentially remains level during her entire walk. This suggests that she never high-steps, jumps or climbs over anything.

Most importantly, you need to do a hell of a lot better than you are doing to challenge the prevailing theory that Patterson filmed a guy walking in a Bigfoot suit. At this point, you suck.
 
Luminous said:
But ruling out eyewitness testimony is not scientific at all.
Click to expand...

No we shouldn't rule out eyewitness testimony, though we should be aware of influences which can affect our perceptions (drugs or alcohol, poor lighting conditions, time of day, optical illusion, weather, stress, fatigue, age, etc.). For example, a fleeting glimpse on a dark, foggy night, after working a 12-hour shift, should not be accorded the same reliability as a long look at a creature at close range, on a clear day.

What I was specifically referring to were anecdotal accounts, which could be a story passed along by someone who is not the direct witness, or it could be an account written up in a newspaper 100 years ago.

RayG
 
Luminous said:
And it definitely made some tracks. That we have seen.
Click to expand...

We? I've seen no such evidence.

No one in a thick foam and cloth suit, trying to see through a mask, could navigate through some of the debris covered areas without stumbling or falling.
Click to expand...
How was that determined?

The stills captured contain enough detail for anyone to clearly see the truth of what I'm saying.
Click to expand...
I disagree.

Yes, agree with me or else you'll find yourself among the mocking skeptics who are right 100% of the time.
Click to expand...
I'm certainly not right 100% of the time, and my wife can confirm that pretty quickly.

I truly do not see how the 40 year-old Patterson film can prove or disprove anything. It very well may be an uncatalogued, large, hairy, bipedal, ape/human-like creature, or it may be a man in a suit. More evidence is required.

RayG
 
RayG said:
No we shouldn't rule out eyewitness testimony, though we should be aware of influences which can affect our perceptions (drugs or alcohol, poor lighting conditions, time of day, optical illusion, weather, stress, fatigue, age, etc.). For example, a fleeting glimpse on a dark, foggy night, after working a 12-hour shift, should not be accorded the same reliability as a long look at a creature at close range, on a clear day.
Click to expand...

Ray, you are not acknowledging the big gorilla in the room. Eyewitness testimony doesn't even need a witness to anything. If Bigfoot doesn't exist, then it is a legend/myth. Nobody should expect that this possible myth is entirely supported and promoted by misidentifications or errors of perception. That means that we should all expect that there will be people who never saw anything (or even left the house) and yet will make fabricated claims of an encounter. Nearly all eyewitness claims are voluntarily submitted to pro-Bigfoot websites, forums, etc. That means that the first party(s) to evaulate the claim is a person(s) who already thinks that this creature exists. This is the perfect situation for somebody who wants to have their bit of fiction analyzed as if it were real.

What I am saying is that it may be an act of gratuity to assume that the eyewitness claimant has really had some sort of an encounter (false or true) in the very first place. Are you prepared to deal with people who might understand that "living legends" require a perpetuation of false claims that are presented as real experiences?
 
Luminous said:
That's because her legs were obscured at some points.
Click to expand...
That’s part of it. However, much of the footage is ‘ ground shots ‘ ..
In addition, at the 38 second mark; Patty goes behind the trees for about 10 seconds, and when she emerges, we only see her from the rear, from far-far away, with no indication of the characteristics of her gait.

My point: ( which you did not address ) You cannot show more than 6 strides where the ‘ inhuman ‘ gait is observable ..

No human walks like this. I've seen the BH gifs. He does not walk with a knee bend that even remotely equals Patty.
Click to expand...
Remotely is subjective .. So, we disagree on this point ..
Apparently you missed the Discovery Channel program where Dr. Meldrum agreed that an actor in a costume did a good job of duplicating the walk ..
You also missed Tube’s demonstration at BFF, where there was a general agreement that he did the ‘ walk ‘ also ..

The footage clearly shows debris at some points. With her deep bended knee walk, she can smoothly glide right over the obvious debris. BH in a thick cumbersome suit would have fallen or stumbled repeatedly.
See above. I also have stills of Patty putting her hand on a log as she navigates over and around the debris.
Click to expand...
Yes, there is debris everywhere, just no indication Patty is walking on or having a problem navigating through any of it .

If Patty had picked up a boulder or log, or moved it out of the way ( or leaped over something ), we wouldn't be having this discussion ..

Did you miss the pictures of the trackway ?

2ndReelStills.jpg


Not if a helmet is inside as was supposed to be the case.
Click to expand...
You really should do more research, and not jump to conclusions that meet your beliefs .
Do you think the size and nature of the helmet might matter ?
The only ‘ helmet ‘ reference is from Bob Heironimus, quoted in Long’s book ..
“ it was like an old-time football helmet .. “
What do you think ‘ old – time ‘ was in 1967 ?

prod_2802_t.jpg


Actually, there are a couple captures that show the ground. Disturbances are visible. It is a possibility that they are tracks.
Click to expand...
It is a possibility that they are any number of things.
They certainly are not ‘ clearly tracks ‘ being made by the subject.
It does not support your claim that the subject can be seen making tracks ..

Just to clarify .. I'm sure the subject made some tracks while walking.
However there is no evidence that they are in fact the tracks we are shown pictures and casts of..

Of course there is some fuzziness. High def technology had not been invented yet.
Click to expand...
Again, you avoid the obvious. We cannot see finger detail, where you say they are visible ..

The "well documented" problems are found where? And who documented them?

Evolution doesn't work what way? What are you talking about? I must have missed one of your posts, because I don't remember you ever bringing up evolution at all...
Click to expand...

Like someone said a few pages back:
" I've already provided the information, in this thread and the links to threads at BFF.
If you want to read it all again, there is something called a search feature...

Do your own homework. " :)
 
RayG wrote:
For example, a fleeting glimpse on a dark, foggy night, after working a 12-hour shift, should not be accorded the same reliability as a long look at a creature at close range, on a clear day.
Click to expand...


Thank you, Ray....for admitting that Joyce's, and her daughter's, reported sighting of a Bigfoot actually does carry some weight.


Their alleged sighting had all the features you described......a good looooooooooooong look, possibly a couple of minutes....at close range...in broad daylight....and by two eyewitnesses, to boot.

Their report definitely carries some weight, due to those aspects you specified.....and it's weight is even further enhanced by the fact that her husband supports their story.

Thanks again.
 
Last edited:
Luminous/LAL/et all – Other then rehashing the same “evidence” over, and over, and over again; what new credible evidence is there to support the existence of “Bigfoot”?

In the end, all the claims of “defined muscle groups”, tracks, he said/she said, etc. are based on a single reference point – the Patterson Film. Scientifically speaking there is simply no other credible evidence to support your claims.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Why didn't Patty hit the woods near her?
Click to expand...

Because Patty was a guy in a costume.

Patterson created a makeshift Bigfoot costume, but he couldn't make the guy inside it locomote through obstacles and still remain to appear inhuman. The Bluff Creek scene that he chose to film his fake Bigfoot is essentially a flat-bottom bowl surrounded by forested steep inclines. If his phony Bigfoot had retreated to the nearest timber, he would have had to show her climbing an incline through genuine forest with all kinds of stuff on the ground. As soon as his costumed man has to negotiate through this stuff, it starts to look exactly like a guy in a suit. Patterson was smart enough to know that his fake Bigfoot could only be allowed to stride across the sand/gravel bed without doing anything acrobatic. At the moment she has to leap or climb, she reveals herself to not be a creature that evolved in this sort of terrain.

Lesson #1 to Bigfoot hoaxers (pay close attention you YouTubers!): Never try to show your Bigfoot doing any kind of activity that would categorically rule out a human actor. Your guy in that suit can only do things that a guy in a suit can do. Don't get too ambitious!
 
Locknar said:
First hand accounts, unsupported by any physical evidence, are simply not credible and carry no scientific “weight”.

Your welcome.
Click to expand...

Yes, Sweaty seems to think that just because the circumstances of one report make it more reliable than another, that it automatically equates to the witness being more credible.

While I would consider a lengthy day-time sighting more reliable than a glimpse at night, a dead body would trump both.

RayG
 
RayG wrote:
While I would consider a lengthy day-time sighting more reliable than a glimpse at night, a dead body would trump both.
Click to expand...


Thanks again, Ray! I really appreciate you...a hardened skeptic...supporting the notion that some eyewitness reports can, and do, carry weight as evidence for Bigfoot's existence.

And yes...I agree 100%....a body would be best...it would be PROOF! ;)
 
Luminous said:
Correa,

Your youtube links would not open.
Click to expand...
Copy-and-paste the links below to your browser's address box.
http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=Cmx4u2fm1LM
http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=dLvcRj5YMgg
http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=aanYNjjoCQo
http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=TyD7JRhZhoQ
http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=xil2YKJpOWE

Luminous said:
Your links to the gorilla site opened fine. But all I saw were gorillas with long hair.
Click to expand...
Assuming there were only long hairs... Scissors cut hair.
Anyway, I think PGF's poor resolution, does not allow too much inferences on how short were Patty's hair.

Luminous said:
Also how do you know that Marx's 77 Bigfoot suit had short hair? I see what looks like black stretchable velvet material, but no hair whatsoever. Where did you get your information on that?
Click to expand...
My perception, based on the stills posted at this very thread. You see stretchable veçvet material, I see something quite similar to Patty's hairs.

You posted PGF stills that you interpret as muscle groups. I see the same pattern in several old gorilla suits. Note also the pics I posted and the videos I linked have better resolution than PGF. PGF leaves much more space for interpretation. And that's where bias sweep in.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Long and interesting clip about Dahinden. He just got in to bigfoot way too deep, imo.
Click to expand...

Excellent vintage clip! In the last few moments we learn about what happens when Dahinden is put to the money test. So Rene, let's pretend you have a Bigfoot, how much money for it? One million dollars? "I wouldn't even get out of bed for that."

Rene Dahinden was thinking he should be paid more that $1 million for a Bigfoot. I think he was pretty much right, but way under the real cash money prospective.

A genuine Bigfoot body (dead and complete, or alive if legal) right now could probably be sold by Sotheby's New York for $50-100 million. It's not like a second one can be obtained, since 450 years in America has not even yet produced a first one.

Any intelligent American President would get involved.

Sotheby's is selling a Bigfoot next month, is this thing real?

Why yes sir. You see they have a 173 page catalog that describes this single lot with independant descriptions by 38 different emminent scientists that all basically write about the gross anatomy and various parts. None of them even mentions that this thing might be a fake, and all of them have inspected it first-hand. It seems that this is the creature that so many have been talking about. It's rather important sir, because this is the only known living hominoid primate to be bipedal like ourselves sir. It's quite a unique thing, and I must say sir, it's also an American historical treasure and icon. The Sotheby's catalog for this lot, which constitutes the entire auction, includes 89 color photographs, DNA analysis and all sorts of other scientific analysis. If I may say so myself, I truly doubt that this specimen is a fake, sir.

How much can we spend on it?

Well sir, I've already consulted our executives in the relevant agencies and they agree that we could spend about $360 billion for this Bigfoot.

Who found this creature anyways?

His name is Biscardi, sir. I'm not sure if his first name is Terry, Tom or Toby.

Nevermind. Send somebody up to New York with my order to buy this thing. Tell them not to drop their bidding paddle until it goes beyond $300 billion. Let's hope that Bill Gates and his billionaire buddies don't team up against us. I have this feeling that we will get our Bigfoot for only about $80 million. If any competitive bidder appears to be Russian, Chinese or Japanese, tell them to up the limit to $390 billion. We don't want to lose this.

Right, sir.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom