• 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.
Luminous said:
I see Marx's 77 suit as nothing more than a stretchable velvet material, what you call hair I see velvet fuzz.
Click to expand...
So, tell me, how can we know who's right?

Luminous said:
The point is they used long hair on gorilla suits to cover zippers and clasps etc. Why would Patterson be foolish enough to use short hair knowing that zippers and clasps would easily be seen?
Click to expand...
Would you happen to have a link to gorilla suits with all those zipers and clasps? I can easilly imagine a costume without them. Even if a costume has zippers, you must never forget that (1) only near the seams there would be need for longer hairs and (2) PGF resolution is too low to allow anyone to say there were or not zippers, clasps, facial expressions, etc.

Luminous said:
Don't even think of telling me that Patterson's "suit" wouldn't need zippers or clasps to hold it all together. The reason you can't find any zippers and clasps is because THERE ARE NONE.
Click to expand...
Well, it seems you've made up your mind and the debate is over.
But this sort of answer is of no help when it comes to debating any subject.

Luminous said:
It sounds like you have this all wrapped up. I've said what I came to say.
Click to expand...
All wrapped up? No. I just informed myself a bit on the subject and applied critical thinking to the matter.

Luminous said:
You either believe it or reject it. Either way, it doesn't matter to me. I've got some other things I need to tend to, so I apologize for cutting this short. Feel free to continue on in my absence. Best wishes...
Click to expand...
Its not a matter of believing or not, at least for me (other individuals may and will take the matter as it suits them better). Its a matter of obtaining a conclusion after evaluating the available evidence and reasonings.

Best wishes.
 
Question

Question for the Regulars: (while there is a lull)

I believe I really followed the BFF threads pretty closely during Dfoot’s suit building experiments coupled with Tubes unnatural gait debunking I viewed the PGF as finally put to rest.

However whenever a proponent trots out the “not possible to build suit” argument I pop open one of the many Dfoot collages I have saved and look at his experiments and think wow that’s spot on. I am curious why others don’t refer to his work? I did see the patty goes to Hollywood Photoshop job (which I thought was pretty funny) and do recall his narratives being slightly over the top, but the work he did impressed me. Where all those collages and suits Photoshop jobs or the real thing?

Thanks
Rick
 
Correa Neto wrote:
Its a matter of obtaining a conclusion after evaluating the available evidence and reasonings.
Click to expand...

That's not exactly correct.
If the evidence for Bigfoot, either collectively or individually, does not rise to the level of proof....then nobody can legitimately conclude that Bigfoot exists....as a definite.

Likewise....skeptics cannot conclude that Bigfoot doesn't exist....because the evidence certainly does carry some weight.

The only correct way to "think" about the possibility of Bigfoot's existence is to view it in terms of likelihood or probability.
It's purely a matter of "weighing the evidence".

If the evidence indicates a 70% "degree of probability" of Bigfoot's existence.....then the most anyone can legitimately say about Bigfoot is that there's a 70% chance that it's real.

Skeptics can't legitimately say...or scientifically justify....saying there's a 0% "degree of probability" or "chance" of Bigfoot's existence...
And neither can proponents legitimately say there's a 100% probability...or solid proof...of Bigfoot's existence.

It's all a matter of assigning the proper weight to the evidence.......until there's a body.
 
rgann said:
Question for the Regulars: (while there is a lull)

I believe I really followed the BFF threads pretty closely during Dfoot’s suit building experiments coupled with Tubes unnatural gait debunking I viewed the PGF as finally put to rest.

However whenever a proponent trots out the “not possible to build suit” argument I pop open one of the many Dfoot collages I have saved and look at his experiments and think wow that’s spot on. I am curious why others don’t refer to his work? I did see the patty goes to Hollywood Photoshop job (which I thought was pretty funny) and do recall his narratives being slightly over the top, but the work he did impressed me. Where all those collages and suits Photoshop jobs or the real thing?

Thanks
Rick
Click to expand...
The only photoshopping was the " patty goes to Hollywood " stuff .

I was one of the people who suggested Dfoot was waisting his time.

No matter how good a suit he made, there would always be an out ..

" Materials not made in 67' or some such .."

I don't agree that Patty is a good suit .. It looks ragged and piecemeal to me ..

That said, it's not any easier to make a good copy of a bad suit than a good copy of a good one.

It has to match exactly, to satisfy the Footers...

I have a feeling we will see some of Dfoot's work on YouTube and or Cryptomundo any time now...

I predict it will get lots of play, mostly from the credulous ..
 
You can not quantify the "probablity of bigfeet being real". All one can do is to qualify it, by using terms as "good", "bad", "unlikely", "very unlikely", etc.

Choose the wording you preffer:
-After evaluating the available evidence and reasonings I concluded the chances of bigfeet being real animals are very small.
-After evaluating the available evidence and reasonings I concluded bigfeet are not real animals.
One of them may sound a bit better for some, but both mean the same thing for all practical reasons.

The very nature of skepticism force us to re-evaluate our positions everytime an argument or a piece of evidence is presented. Critical thinking is not belief and can not (or should not) create beliefs. The statements above may change if reliable evidence becomes available.
 
Diogenes said:
...snip...I have a feeling we will see some of Dfoot's work on YouTube and or Cryptomundo any time now...

I predict it will get lots of play, mostly from the credulous ..
Click to expand...
Sorry for the snipping, but I disagree (OMG!!! Skeptics disagreeing!!!).

Not even the folks (OK, most of them) at Cryptomundo seem to be willing to give too much credit to bigyoutubefoots. Well, at least for now. Of course, files with good resolution hosted somewhere else and with the "approval seal" of some bigfoot investigator...
 
Diogenes said:
The only photoshopping was the " patty goes to Hollywood " stuff .I was one of the people who suggested Dfoot was waisting his time.
No matter how good a suit he made, there would always be an out .. " Materials not made in 67' or some such ..
Click to expand...

Diogenes

Thanks for the confirmation that is what I thought; I did see his attempts in regards to the BFF as being futile there was no way that was going to fly there IMO. There where too many qualifiers and moving goal posts. The request that he had to film it before it would even be “considered” was interesting, given the weight blob-squatches have.

I thought his work was a great example of how illusions are created by suit makers and why certain characteristics are tell-tale suit indicators.

I have always wanted to keep some kind of a score card that cataloged the numerous suit indicators and the anatomical embellishments one could expect from a suit. IMO it’s as close as I have ever seen anyone put together piece by piece a demonstration on how a suit could be made circa 1967. Plus who could not love the Tor Johnson-Dan Post-Monsters Magazine connection.

Thanks
Rick
 

Attachments

  • dfoot.jpg
    dfoot.jpg
    22.3 KB · Views: 6
rgann wrote:
I did see his attempts in regards to the BFF as being futile there was no way that was going to fly there IMO. There where too many qualifiers....
Click to expand...

Only ONE qualifier was necessary.....that it be seen in motion.

Anything can be copied as a stationary sculpture.

The one aspect of the suit that was necessary, in order for it to be considered a match for Patty's so-called "suit".....was for it to be filmed on a person's body, and in motion.

Dfoot couldn't produce the goods...period.
He made light of the "crappy" suit Roger made....but couldn't re-produce it himself.
(Pardon me while I laugh :D )
 
People spend so much time staring at the stills and looped slow-mo sequences that have been isolated; I think they tend to forget or ignore, that there is only about 25 seconds of film where any appreciable amount of the ' suit' can be seen all at one time , and we never see a good portion of it ...
 
Diogenes said:
People spend so much time staring at the stills and looped slow-mo sequences that have been isolated; I think they tend to forget or ignore, that there is only about 25 seconds of film where any appreciable amount of the ' suit' can be seen all at one time , and we never see a good portion of it...
Click to expand...

Actually...something we never see is 1 second of a suit, in motion, which compares with Patty's hide.

Neither will we ever see 1 second of Dfoot's wonder-suit in motion, on a human being.

In this case....one minute or so of Patty's hide in motion , is light-years beyond the 0 seconds of a suit comparable to Patty.
 
Diogenes said:
It has to match exactly, to satisfy the Footers...
Click to expand...

Yeah, much like a dead body is the only thing that will fully satisfy skeptics. :D

Here's a collection of my thoughts, posted elsewhere, on this matter:

It's long been my opinion that if the fur, stride, height, bulk, length of limbs, shape of head, and any other number of criteria don't match, then most PGF proponents are going to point a finger and say it doesn't look like the subject in the PGF (even though the Patterson subject doesn't look like some other reported squatches).

It's not unreasonable to ask someone to show you a suit (or reasonable facsimile), but one thing that makes any large task less daunting is time. If someone has enough time, they can create almost anything -- escape tunnels, elaborate crop circles, pyramids, huge walls, etc. etc. If Patterson DID hoax the 'suit', how long did it take for him to create it? Nobody knows. He could have spent months, even years, to get it exactly right. We know he was already interested enough in bigfoot to have the book 'Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?' published the year prior to his film at Bluff Creek. How long before that did he become involved with and interested in bigfoot?

Does that prove he created a 'suit'? No, but it gets tiresome hearing claims that if the suit was that easy to produce, then a suitnik should be able to produce one. Never mind the investment of time that might be required, the experimenting, and rinky-dinking about with materials, padding, hair placement, and such.... show us an exact replication of the critter IN FULL MOTION!!. Can't do that within a certain timeframe, even if we have no idea how long that timeframe should be? Bzzzzzzt. Time's up. You fail. The PGF CAN'T be a hoax. It was IMPOSSIBLE for a _________ (country bumpkin/down and out rodeo rider/horse wrangler/insert your favorite intellectually demeaning Patterson description) to have hoaxed something that appears so realistic. And, bringing us full circle, the proponent asks, if it wasn't impossible, why hasn't anyone else been able to reproduce a realistic looking 'suit'?

RayG
 
Last edited:
We don't need to produce a suit. Footers need to produce bigfoot or parts thereof.

Nothing like Patty was filmed or photographed before or since PGF.

If Patty was bigfoot, then her or more like her should have turned up by now.

If Patty was a human in a suit, then the job got done. The suit got made. Period.
 
LTC8K6 said:
We don't need to produce a suit. Footers need to produce bigfoot or parts thereof.

Nothing like Patty was filmed or photographed before or since PGF.

If Patty was bigfoot, then her or more like her should have turned up by now.

If Patty was a human in a suit, then the job got done. The suit got made. Period.
Click to expand...

Exactly the point I've made a couple of times; all this "Bigfoot is real", based on a SINGLE data source.

Funny how the "Bigfooters" hang on the PGF, or useless first hand accounts of sightings...yet never want to talk about lack of other credible data sources.

A “species” that lives on the fringe of human civilization…and NO, ZERO, NADA, NONE in terms of physical remains; no body, no bones, no teeth, etc.; is roughly the same physical height as Andre the Giant was…yet is suppose to weigh 4 times as much as he did (at his heaviest)?
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
What is it about answering 'if the fingers bend what must we pretend?' that causes you to evade/avoid/ignore it?

I'm only avoiding debating that issue, because I'm simply avoiding debating any issue on this board. .[/COLOR]
Click to expand...
So you realize of course, that's not true.
Are you interested in starting a thread on your Mars claims?

Yeah, I'm considering doing that.
Although, if I do, I won't spend much time here at all, debating and discussing the evidence.
I'll just post some images, and some info to go with them....and leave it at that. Other members can discuss them, if they want.


There are other very interesting anomalies on Mars, some of which appear to have a connection with some ancient, and mysterious, man-made formations in Avebury, England....such as Avebury Circle, and Silbury Hill.
Click to expand...
Doesn't sound like you find the evidence very compelling.
 
I agree. The onus is not on the skeptics to produce a suit to prove Patty is a suit. The onus is on researchers and enthusiasts to prove the species as a whole exists. Debating whether Patty was a real animal or suit does nothing to document a species in my humble opinion. It's interesting to talk about but it's not going to get the job done.
 
What she said.

Now what I say, there is no good/strong evidence that proves that it can't be a man in a suit.

m
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom