• 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.
All this talk about who "claims" or claimed to be in "the suit"..

saying you did something does not mean you did.

Saying there was a suit does not mean there was.

Dolts!

El M.

PS -- again - a child on mother, an anus, a vulva, breasts, embedded faces in the fur ---face that
changes from frame to frame...

all impossible for a hoaxer to do.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Whereas, the real Patty has full body compatible weave to her hair.

The hair on Patty is manifestly fake, actually:

Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans. His comments are as follows:

In all furry animals the hair has a definite pattern, that is, on each area of the body the hairs are oriented in a certain direction. For instance, on a chimpanzee's arm, or even on a man's if he is hairy, they go down from the shoulder to the elbow, and up from the wrist to the elbow. This definite hair pattern can be seen even on photographs of animals from the way the light shines on their fur.

On the creature shown on Patterson's film there is nothing of the sort. As can be seen from the way the hairs shine, giving the fur a speckled appearance, they point in all directions (compare the blowups of the film with photographs of gorillas or, better, of certain bears, which have 'short, shiny, black hair', and you will see that in the latter, the shine on the fur shows that on each part of the body the hairs all point in the same direction).

The aspect of the hair of the creature in the film is exactly what should be expected from artificial fur--whether thick velvet or nylon fur--in which all threads (not actually hairs) are attached uniformly on some canvas base. When you stroke this material in different directions, the artificial hairs get bent in these directions and remain so until you brush them all carefully in the same direction.

Patterson adds--which is also seen in the film-that 'even her big, droopy breasts' are covered with short shiny black hair. This would of course be possible in some unknown species of man, but it would be rather improbable to say the least. In all larger apes the breasts have a slight tendency toward swelling, and even dropping a little, when the female is nursing its baby or if it has been nursing many of them, but even in such hairy primates the chest is almost naked.

I want to add that this (to me) obvious hoax does not shake at all my firm conviction that some large unknown human-like primate lives in the northwest of the United States and in the western provinces of Canada, not to mention of course certain mountain ranges of northeastern and central Asia."
 
historian wrote:
Therefore, virtally this entire thread is a joke because it is a fermentation tank for highly prejudiced group thinking, whose members are in need of counseling. In my humble opinion, of course.

You couldn't have stated it any better, historian!

I've said essentially the same thing about the "skeptical" thinking that exists on this forum....by calling it a 'sewer' of a discussion board.

The skeptical "analysis" of the evidence that goes on here is not critical analysis...it's wishful thinking analysis.

A great example of this is Correa's post with the images of Gorilla suits.

After reading it, I thought of the phrase...(inspired by the Christmas season)....."The Little Dreamer Boy"....to describe Correa. His comparison of the suits with Patty's hide is pure wishful thinking. I'll demonstrate why it is, sometime later today.
 
historian wrote:


You couldn't have stated it any better, historian!

I've said essentially the same thing about the "skeptical" thinking that exists on this forum....by calling it a 'sewer' of a discussion board.

The skeptical "analysis" of the evidence that goes on here is not critical analysis...it's wishful thinking analysis.

A great example of this is Correa's post with the images of Gorilla suits.

After reading it, I thought of the phrase...(inspired by the Christmas season)....."The Little Dreamer Boy"....to describe Correa. His comparison of the suits with Patty's hide is pure wishful thinking. I'll demonstrate why it is, sometime later today.

Sweaty, what is the 1" wide dark band between Patty's hand and arm?
 
Meet the Sasquatch by Christopher Murphy:
p. 84 John Chambers states that he did not design the (P-G) costume.

I'm sure you might understand that " Meet The Sasquatch ", might not be considered an authority in these parts...

No wait! I guess you wouldn't understand ....


...the real Patty has full body compatible weave to her hair.

What a joke ..

You will never find a real animal that has the patchwork of hair, pointing in all directions, that Patty has..
 
historian wrote:


You couldn't have stated it any better, historian!

I've said essentially the same thing about the "skeptical" thinking that exists on this forum....by calling it a 'sewer' of a discussion board.

The skeptical "analysis" of the evidence that goes on here is not critical analysis...it's wishful thinking analysis.
It's time for our monthly Sweaty visit in which he comes with some new or used faulty logic, tosses out a few insults, has his poor arguments explained for him, and skulks off for another month or so. I'm excited. Aren't you?

A great example of this is Correa's post with the images of Gorilla suits.

After reading it, I thought of the phrase...(inspired by the Christmas season)....."The Little Dreamer Boy"....to describe Correa. His comparison of the suits with Patty's hide is pure wishful thinking. I'll demonstrate why it is, sometime later today.
Is this going to be like the demonstration about Patty's thumb you did last time you came through? You know, the one where mangler helped you see your false assumption. I can't wait.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3120614#post3120614
 
Last edited:
kitakaze wrote:
It's time for our monthly Sweaty visit in which he comes with some new or used faulty logic, tosses out a few insults, has his poor arguments explained for him, and skulks off for another month or so. I'm excited. Aren't you?


It's time for kitakaze to babble and ramble.

Why don't you take a stab at doing some real analysis, kitty.....or are you too stupid for that?
 
kitakaze wrote:



It's time for kitakaze to babble and ramble.

Why don't you take a stab at doing some real analysis, kitty.....or are you too stupid for that?
Analyze this:
Hmmm.....what could that be, on the end of Patty's arm???.....


PattyHand23.gif


Maybe it's a cheeseburger...:p....or maybe it's a bottle of Windex...:boggled:.


Hence my use of the term "sewer of a forum". ;)
Oh dear, someone got a little quick with the condescending sarcasm.

Not a cheesburger, not a bottle of windex, and certainly not Patty's thumb.

Maybe I'm too stupid and babbling but it looks like you weren't exactly correct there. I was thinking more like wrong. Really wrong.

Analysis, Sweaty style.
 
PS -- again - a child on mother, an anus, a vulva, breasts, embedded faces in the fur ---face that
changes from frame to frame...

But so easy for a fool to imagine. (Wait, breasts impossible to hoax? CRAZY.)
 
Confirmed fake.... I looked at the link of the color photo of the dude in a suite. The breasts are too low to be natural. It's definitely a fake bigfoot. Prove me wrong!:p
 
PS -- again - a child on mother, an anus, a vulva, breasts, embedded faces in the fur ---face that
changes from frame to frame...

all impossible for a hoaxer to do.
The ridiculousness of saying faking breasts is impossible aside, if you really believe a child on a mother, an anus, vagina, and faces in the fur are visible, why not just simply point them out for us in the film and explain in a coherent, logical, point by point manner how what's being seen can not be accounted for by things such as pareidolia?
 
Last edited:
The ridiculousness of saying faking breasts is impossible aside, (cut)
Yep - in the 1974 production of The Stepford Wives, Katherine Ross wears false breasts blended seamlessly into her own bare skin. Pictures of this appear in a couple of articles on make-up I've seen - one I've found & can scan and post the picture (decency & copyright aside :p).

Of course in 1974 the 'technology' to do this was way in front of '67 (just don't tell Mr Spock his 1966 ears don't blend in) :rolleyes:.......
---------------------------------------
John (WS)
 
Yep - in the 1974 production of The Stepford Wives, Katherine Ross wears false breasts blended seamlessly into her own bare skin. Pictures of this appear in a couple of articles on make-up I've seen - one I've found & can scan and post the picture (decency & copyright aside :p).

Of course in 1974 the 'technology' to do this was way in front of '67 (just don't tell Mr Spock his 1966 ears don't blend in) :rolleyes:.......
---------------------------------------
John (WS)
It's too modern but two words: Boogie Nights.

At the risk of sounding like a perv, I'd actually like to see that considering how much we hear about Patty's breasts. Can you pm that, Woopert?
 
Confirmed fake.... I looked at the link of the color photo of the dude in a suite. The breasts are too low to be natural. It's definitely a fake bigfoot. Prove me wrong!:p

Any female over the age of 50 can prove you wrong. There are no breasts that are too low to be natural. Quite the opposite. Unnatural breasts are perky beyond belief. Especially when lieing flat on ones back. Denial is alive an well on James Randi. Bigfoot is real but don't have any really bad nightmares tonight. No, I take that back. You can have really bad nightmares tonight.
 
Any female over the age of 50 can prove you wrong. There are no breasts that are too low to be natural. ....

Apparently you don't know the difference between ' hanging low ' and ' attached low ' ..


However, since we don't have a Bigfoot body, you are always safe with :

" Whose to say Bigfoot breasts aren't attached low, compared to other primates ? ... " Oh, and " off-center " while you're at it ..

Oh, and the left one bounces but the right one doesn't ...


Oh, oh, oh, oh ......Etc....
 
Any female over the age of 50 can prove you wrong. There are no breasts that are too low to be natural. Quite the opposite. Unnatural breasts are perky beyond belief. Especially when lieing flat on ones back. Denial is alive an well on James Randi. Bigfoot is real but don't have any really bad nightmares tonight. No, I take that back. You can have really bad nightmares tonight.
Who's in denial? Are Patty's boobs flip-flop saggy like many not just older women or does she have a couple off rock-hard, perky beyond belief, hairy guns that are set way to low on the chest to be mammary glands?

BTW, if you're going to draw Kaku into your fantasy play, at least try to spell his name right. Otherwise, you look (more) silly.

That's Michio Kaku, not Machio.

ETA: Greg beat me to it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom