Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Correa Neto]

Ah, the old "the footprints were too deep" line.

I say its complete and utter bullsh!t. No need to use half-words or to be politically correct in this case. Given the very same clay-rich substrate, your foot will create a deeper impression when its wet than when its dry. If the substrate is sandy, then it may be the opposite. Add to this variables such as soil or sediment composition, grain size and packing and you see how empty such argument is. Whoever sticks to it is either ignorant (willfully or not) or dishonest.

Stride is another piece of faulty reasoning. It is nearly useless. Pick your pair of fakefeet. Make print No.1 with left fakefoot, pressing it on the ground with your hands or foot. Make print No.2 as many lenght measuring units you want from print No.1. If you can not avoid leaving your own footprint impressions in the ground while making the tracks (say, by stepping over a cardboard), just admit they are yours, but say you made while casting, photographing, studying and following the track. Easy, eh? Gotta be too naive to accept stride can not be faked.

 

[chillzero]

coughgagcoughturkeyturdscoughgagcoughcompletepuppypoopcoughgagcoughbeammeupscottycoughgagcoughcaptianIthinkshe'sgointablowcoughgagcoughandtheoscargoestoDfootcoughgagcoughformanufacturingcompletefalsehoodswithastraightfacecoughgagcough

historian,
Please stop making these posts. If you have nothing constructive to contribute as a response, then stop bumping up threads with these 'coughing fits'. Your posts should be on topic to the thread, and civil.

 

[LTC8K6]

Also, get this --- the track DEPTH was huge compared to Gimlin or later, Titmus.

Possibly 2000 lbs or more -- using physics formulas, and comparing with Gimlin's jump-down
test.

Nobody in no suit could make no tracks that deep no how no way Jose.

Plus STRIDE FROM TRACK TO TRACK ---- MAN CANNOT DO IT. NOT FER LONG.

You try it -- 41 inches.Over and over and over...

Except that we have no evidence of any of that...

The stride in the film we have is not impresssive. The depth of the tracks we have is not impressive. In fact, the stride is very short at times in the PGF, and some tracks are shallow.

 

[LTC8K6]

People = get real -- a guy like Chambers works for MONEY, and P&G never had
even a pot to **** in.

SNORT!

Patterson actually had plenty of money, of course. He just liked to rip people off. He went on many expeditions after sasquatch and you can't do that without plenty of money. After he made the PGF, he had enormous funds for the late 1960's.

 

[kitakaze]

kitakaze - Don't worry. The mask with the moving jaw was typical. Nothing complex at all. It would appear to Bob H. that he was putting on a soft old time football helmet with a chin strap. That's how it works. I can show you later the jawline moving. All professional ape heads worked this way since the 30's.

Very interesting, D. I look forward to that demonstration. Is anyone else aware of this supposed jaw movement?

 

[kitakaze]

...turkey turds...complete puppy poop...beam me up scotty...captian I think she's goin ta blow...and the oscar goes to Dfoot...for manufacturing complete falsehoods with a straight face...

There, I made your latest fit a little more ledgible. Neal, how persuasive do you think the 'that's puppy poo' counter argument is? Do you think it encourages anyone to support your views?

Either substantiate the above statements or take some Robitussin already.

 

[Correa Neto]

K, how many times do I have to tell you that setting the the HAARP mind-control device power beyond the green line can fry the target's brain?

 

[Hellbound]

K, how many times do I have to tell you that setting the the HAARP mind-control device power beyond the green line can fry the target's brain?

Um...

That may be my fault. We were joking around at the NSA World Domination and Christmas Holiday party, and reversed the polarity of the hyper motivator on the HAARP as a practical joke.

You might wanna check that.

 

[William Parcher]

kitakaze - Don't worry. The mask with the moving jaw was typical. Nothing complex at all. It would appear to Bob H. that he was putting on a soft old time football helmet with a chin strap. That's how it works. I can show you later the jawline moving. All professional ape heads worked this way since the 30's.

And the bottom photo is similar to what Bob H. would have seen while putting on Patty's head. They all differ, but the workings are the same. He only saw it twice 40 years ago, but what he says is accurate.

You've got a problem, Dfoot. Bob Heironimus denies that the Patty mask had a moving mouth. He says so in a radio interview from earlier this year. If it had something like a chinstrap then he or Patterson had to attach it after the headpiece is slipped on. Instructions would have been given. If you move your mouth, the mouth on the mask will move too. I want you to move your mouth while I'm filming you, ok?

Now 40 years later, BH denies he was moving the mask mouth. The mouth device doesn't make sense anyway. If RP did use this, it was a wasted detail. The subject is so small (far from the camera) that the mouth is never really seen in the projected film. Poor Roger must have felt cheated when nobody who watched the film mentioned seeing the mouth moving. It took 40 years and modern computer technology to learn that Roger used a mouth device. Poor Bob must simply be forgetting that whole thing.

 

[historian]

You've got a problem, Dfoot. Bob Heironimus denies that the Patty mask had a moving mouth. He says so in a radio interview from earlier this year. If it had something like a chinstrap then he or Patterson had to attach it after the headpiece is slipped on. Instructions would have been given. If you move your mouth, the mouth on the mask will move too. I want you to move your mouth while I'm filming you, ok?

Now 40 years later, BH denies he was moving the mask mouth. The mouth device doesn't make sense anyway. If RP did use this, it was a wasted detail. The subject is so small (far from the camera) that the mouth is never really seen in the projected film. Poor Roger must have felt cheated when nobody who watched the film mentioned seeing the mouth moving. It took 40 years and modern computer technology to learn that Roger used a mouth device. Poor Bob must simply be forgetting that whole thing.

In legal terms, this is referred to as a "contradiction". A contradiction between the visual record and Heironious's recollection of an event that he was not within 500 miles of, when it occurred. A contradiction is the primary tool to impeach a witness for perjury. Which is lieing under oath. Consequently, Heironious can now be legitimately considered a LIAR.

 

[Correa Neto]

Wy only Hieronimus can legitimately be considered a liar?

Why can't Gimlim legitimately be considered a liar?

Why can't Patterson legitimately be considered a liar?

Why can't all of them legitimately be considered liars?

One can find contradictions between the accounts of these three persons and the PGF as well, after all.

 

[LTC8K6]

was not within 500 miles of, when it occurred.

I'll bet you actually believe that, too.

So where was BH when the PGF was filmed?

Wait. First tell us, when was the PGF filmed and how you know?

We need evidence now, not the story of an interested party.

 

[Hitch]

You've got a problem, Dfoot. Bob Heironimus denies that the Patty mask had a moving mouth. He says so in a radio interview from earlier this year. If it had something like a chinstrap then he or Patterson had to attach it after the headpiece is slipped on. Instructions would have been given. If you move your mouth, the mouth on the mask will move too. I want you to move your mouth while I'm filming you, ok?

Now 40 years later, BH denies he was moving the mask mouth. The mouth device doesn't make sense anyway. If RP did use this, it was a wasted detail. The subject is so small (far from the camera) that the mouth is never really seen in the projected film. Poor Roger must have felt cheated when nobody who watched the film mentioned seeing the mouth moving. It took 40 years and modern computer technology to learn that Roger used a mouth device. Poor Bob must simply be forgetting that whole thing.

I've been reading this thread and looking at all the "evidence" provided (both ways) since it started. I have never seem any, even slightly, convincing evidence that "Patty's" mouth moved. It's silly to argue about how, or if, it could be done and why Bob H. never mentioned it. It's just another one of those made up details that Bigfooters like to pretend are in the P/G film as an obstacle to anyone "recreating it if it's a hoax." It would be pathetically easy for anyone to recreate what's actually visible in the film. It's most likely impossible to create all the stuff Bigfooters like to pretend is there.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Hitch wrote:

It would be pathetically easy for anyone to recreate what's actually visible in the film.

Sure thing, Hitch........40 years...and no-one's done it yet.

It's pathetically easy to say it would be pathetically easy to re-create.....just next to impossible to actually do! Right, Dfoot?!

 

[historian]

Wy only Hieronimus can legitimately be considered a liar?

Because he is a liar and scientific research has proven that Patty is not a man in a suit.

Why can't Gimlim legitimately be considered a liar?

Because I have met Bob Gimlin, and he is no liar.

Why can't Patterson legitimately be considered a liar??

Because Bob Gimlin is no liar, and he corroborates that Patterson filmed a Bigfoot.

Why can't all of them legitimately be considered liars??

See above for answer.

One can find contradictions between the accounts of these three persons and the PGF as well, after all.

But you were not there when the alleged quote took place, nor did you look over the shoulder of the author who put pen to paper. Therefore you have no possible way of knowing exactly what was said in the first place. Bigfoot is a highly inflamatory topic, with a lot of bias, bigotry, prejudice, self interest and special interests influencing each persons recollection and/or their accounting. Virtually every person that claims someone said this or that, has the opportunity to then lie through their teeth. And you now apparently believe those other persons instead of Gimlin and Patterson, so that you can then hopefully make Gimlin and Patterson into liars. Which is your bias coming to the surface. So you have nothing upon which to base your defamatory claim, unless you have a candid video of Gimlin or Patterson stating exactly what you claim. Since you don't have that, then you have nothing.

 

[Hitch]

Hitch wrote:



Sure thing, Hitch........40 years...and no-one's done it yet.

It's pathetically easy to say it would be pathetically easy to re-create.....just next to impossible to actually do! Right, Dfoot?!

Keep telling yourself that.

More convincing, detailed, and realistic footage of Bigfoot-like creatures has been created time and time again since Patterson trotted out his minute or so of shaky-cam*. No Bigfooter will accept it, because to admit to what is manifestly evident makes them look foolish for ever believing in the P/G film.





* Not to mention all the superior footage that preceded the P/G film by years, or even decades.

 

[GT/CS]

Hitch wrote:



Sure thing, Hitch........40 years...and no-one's done it yet.

It's pathetically easy to say it would be pathetically easy to re-create.....just next to impossible to actually do! Right, Dfoot?!

Hey Sweaty, you have me on ignore yet? Now about that dark band on Patty's wrist?

You see none of the other stuff matters; not the moving mouth, or the imaginary muscles, or the perfect fur, or any of that. And saying that people can't reproduce the suit doesn't matter.
Why?
Because Patty has an obvious dark band on her wrist. Know what that means? That means it's a bloke in a suit and all the rest of the made up facts don't matter because the dark band trumps all of it.

Unless you, or someone can come up with a REASONABLE explanation for the band you're just pissing in the wind.

For the record, I grew up in bigfoot country and I'd absolutely love to find out that the beast exists but because of that blasted dark band that you cannot explain away this film disproves bigfoot's existance more than helps prove it.

In fact, IMHO this film is one of the main reasons the movement is not taken seriously by the general public.

Now about that dark band.......?

 

[historian]

Hey Sweaty, you have me on ignore yet? Now about that dark band on Patty's wrist?

You see none of the other stuff matters; not the moving mouth, or the imaginary muscles, or the perfect fur, or any of that. And saying that people can't reproduce the suit doesn't matter.
Why?
Because Patty has an obvious dark band on her wrist. Know what that means? That means it's a bloke in a suit and all the rest of the made up facts don't matter because the dark band trumps all of it.

Unless you, or someone can come up with a REASONABLE explanation for the band you're just pissing in the wind.

For the record, I grew up in bigfoot country and I'd absolutely love to find out that the beast exists but because of that blasted dark band that you cannot explain away this film disproves bigfoot's existance more than helps prove it.

In fact, IMHO this film is one of the main reasons the movement is not taken seriously by the general public.

Now about that dark band.......?

If there is a legitimate dark wrist band, then it should show up in all pictures where we can see the wrists. Except it doesn't show up below, so there is no stinkin dark band. You are taking a hair weave anomoly, and trying to expand it to define that their is no Bigfoot species. Get real. You are grasping at straws. Beam me up Scotty, I think we're goin to blow.

 

[erikbeckjord]

Ah, the old "the footprints were too deep" line.

I say its complete and utter bullsh!t. No need to use half-words or to be politically correct in this case. Given the very same clay-rich substrate, your foot will create a deeper impression when its wet than when its dry. If the substrate is sandy, then it may be the opposite. Add to this variables such as soil or sediment composition, grain size and packing and you see how empty such argument is. Whoever sticks to it is either ignorant (willfully or not) or dishonest.

Stride is another piece of faulty reasoning. It is nearly useless. Pick your pair of fakefeet. Make print No.1 with left fakefoot, pressing it on the ground with your hands or foot. Make print No.2 as many lenght measuring units you want from print No.1. If you can not avoid leaving your own footprint impressions in the ground while making the tracks (say, by stepping over a cardboard), just admit they are yours, but say you made while casting, photographing, studying and following the track. Easy, eh? Gotta be too naive to accept stride can not be faked.

I can't say what I think of your brains, or the mods will get into this. But guess.

You can't "get on your hands and feet" next to tracks or your marks will be SEEN. Especially true in snow.

(bink!)

Don't give me this wet sand vs dry sand bit. Gimlin was there to TEST the depth, 3 min after the passage. SAME CONDITIONS.

My God what I****S I SEE HERE.

And dump the superior attitude -- you are just flat wrong.

el m.

 

[erikbeckjord]

I've been reading this thread and looking at all the "evidence" provided (both ways) since it started. I have never seem any, even slightly, convincing evidence that "Patty's" mouth moved. It's silly to argue about how, or if, it could be done and why Bob H. never mentioned it. It's just another one of those made up details that Bigfooters like to pretend are in the P/G film as an obstacle to anyone "recreating it if it's a hoax." It would be pathetically easy for anyone to recreate what's actually visible in the film. It's most likely impossible to create all the stuff Bigfooters like to pretend is there.

Mouth moving-- sure does. Do YOU have a 16mm copy of the film?

Can you even FIND frame 369,370,371,372??

tHOUGHT NOT.

Snort!

EL M.