Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[erikbeckjord]

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.

WRONGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!

I made a good comparison film using a 6'7" guy in a rented suit.

Not even close!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No better ones have been made, all with shag-rug hide....obviously not a real
creature.

SNICKER!

El M.

 

[historian]

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.

YOU ARE LIVING IN DENIAL! EVERYTHING THAT YOU JUST STATED, IS AN OBVIOUS, COMPLETE AND BLATANT FALSEHOOD. HAVE A NICE DAY!

 

[manofthesea]

Serious Question Deserving Serious Answer

Thanks correa,

I expected those answers, with the intention of making fun of them, but I'm getting bored with the whole BF thing. I suppose if it makes people happy to believe, what the hell. They can base their beliefs on old film footage taken by a known hoaxer, footprints known to be forged, and their own experience which was inconclusive because no actual, quality image was taken if they want to.

I have yet to see ANY actual proof of BF that can't be readily disputed. We have dinasaur bones from a creature which became extinct a LONG, LONG time ago, but no BF bones. BF is supposed to still exist, which means they are have lifespans of hundreds of years (Longer than any other known homo) or they are still breeding to this day. If they are still breeding, there should be many more than ONE walking around, which means there should be evidence like bones, poop, hair, whatever. That also means patty should not have been alone, since he was a she. Why didn't the male attack? Oh yeah, they're shy.

There's always an excuse.

We don't have to make excuses for any other creature extinct or alive because there is REAL evidence.

How frustrating!

I recommend that you go visit BFF. You'll find experts ready and willing to discuss all things bigfoot. Here, members discuss all (imaginary) things Patty. And entertain the occasional bigfooter.

BUT, if you really want your bigfoot question answered, and bleev that you have all things bigfoot mastered, I suggest you do this:
First, go outside, preferably in a wooded area.
Second, lather yourself in pongid or hominid pheromones (love juice). You may do this step out of order.
Third, take your Louisville Slugger and commence to repeatedly bash a tree.
Fourth, take pictures to provide indisputable evidence/proof.
Another popular method of squatchin' that I read: drive around with a 22 in your glove box, and wait 'til you see something in your headlights.

 

[cloudshipsrule]

I made a good comparison film using a 6'7" guy in a rented suit.

Not even close!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No better ones have been made, all with shag-rug hide....obviously not a real
creature.

You know why? Because the PGF film was filmed using a shi77y camera. Modern attempts have been done using modern equipment, so imperfections are easily discernable. Try using a piece of crap camera next time and you'll get a much more convincing crappy film.

 

[Dfoot]

monstro - Yep. The mouth does move - just as it was designed to. They do that. However, the eyebrow and other things imagined to move in "enhanced" versions of the film are illusions that can be demonstrated on video with still masks.

historian - Your cough argument has given me something to think about. While the fact that I can show you how rubber feet make tracks EXACTLY like those touted as tracks that could only be made by a mid-tarsal breaking/vertically-inclined dermal ridge stomping big foot sounds reasonable, your hacking and coughing causes me to stop and consider the possibility that imagination may trump reality every time.

About money: Just because Patterson can be shown (via contracts he signed) to have ripped people off while his multimillionaire brother-in-law was paying for his film adventures (and who would eventually make a ton of dough from it himself - along with Gimlin) doesn't mean we have to face any hard facts about con men. We can choose PR tactics and just type words that sound better. "He never made a dime off the film" and other nonsense can be repeated enough and maybe someone will buy it.

Instead of increasing the size of lettering (*or coughing) I'll just post photos to demonstrate the things I'm talking about. I think that's how research is done in this dimension anyway...



That mask I glued together took all of 15 minutes to make. The eyeball in the upper left is mine. No make-up or glass eyeball involved. Just pull it on over your head and press record.

The bottom right corner is a slightly "enhanced" version to give it that real bigfoot appeal.

Guy in the middle is Roger Patterson's rich brother-in-law. He gives millions to various causes. One cause was the rodeo rider brother of the woman he loves - although he will clearly state that he did make a ton of money from that Bigfoot venture with Roger. He'll also tell you that he was involved in a hoax and has some regrets about that. But he won't go on camera and tell you that he helped Roger fake the film. He'll only say he gave Roger the money he needed. Why? He says, "It's in the family "and that's all he can say. By that he means he loves his wife and his wife loves her crazy brother that passed away and left one thing of value to his own wife and kids; the money-making "only film of Bigfoot in the flesh".

So those who know grin and bear it. As Al DeAtely says, "It's up to you to decide whether you believe it or not.... but there's no such thing as Bigfoot in my opinion."

As for me (Dfoot) I plan on my own expedition and I WILL FIND PATTY... I just need a little funding from the Bigfoot community for my research first. I guarantee results.

 

[SweatyYeti]

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.......?

Not to worry, GT...I don't put people on "ignore". I'm more than happy to read anything anyone says here......and I'd respond to a lot more of it IF I had the free-time available to do so....and if I didn't mind wasting a good portion of it.
My free-time is simply too limited, and valuable, to post a lot here.

As for the dark bands.....I don't see them as an issue to be dealt with, since they don't appear in the HIGH-QUALITY reproduction of Frame 352....the Cibachrome image. That's all that I can say about them.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Dfoot wrote:

Yep. The mouth does move - just as it was designed to.

Hey Dfoot....your mouth moves a lot......do you think you'll ever be able to back-up your suit-talk with a suit that's as realistic in motion as Patty is???

 

[Hitch]

Dfoot wrote:



Hey Dfoot....your mouth moves a lot......do you think you'll ever be able to back-up your suit-talk with a suit that's as realistic in motion as Patty is???

By that do you mean, "Not very realistic at all?"

 

[cloudshipsrule]

Hey Dfoot....your mouth moves a lot......do you think you'll ever be able to back-up your suit-talk with a suit that's as realistic in motion as Patty is???

That is to say, Can he back up the suit-talk with suit that looks realistic when filmed with a crappy camera.

If bigfoot was real, we wouldn't be having these Internet debates. We would all know 'it' was an actual creature.

 

[historian]

monstro - Yep. The mouth does move - just as it was designed to. They do that. However, the eyebrow and other things imagined to move in "enhanced" versions of the film are illusions that can be demonstrated on video with still masks.

historian - Your cough argument has given me something to think about. While the fact that I can show you how rubber feet make tracks EXACTLY like those touted as tracks that could only be made by a mid-tarsal breaking/vertically-inclined dermal ridge stomping big foot sounds reasonable, your hacking and coughing causes me to stop and consider the possibility that imagination may trump reality every time.

About money: Just because Patterson can be shown (via contracts he signed) to have ripped people off while his multimillionaire brother-in-law was paying for his film adventures (and who would eventually make a ton of dough from it himself - along with Gimlin) doesn't mean we have to face any hard facts about con men. We can choose PR tactics and just type words that sound better. "He never made a dime off the film" and other nonsense can be repeated enough and maybe someone will buy it.

Instead of increasing the size of lettering (*or coughing) I'll just post photos to demonstrate the things I'm talking about. I think that's how research is done in this dimension anyway...

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_7766475aaf69ca68c.gif[/qimg]

That mask I glued together took all of 15 minutes to make. The eyeball in the upper left is mine. No make-up or glass eyeball involved. Just pull it on over your head and press record.

The bottom right corner is a slightly "enhanced" version to give it that real bigfoot appeal.

Guy in the middle is Roger Patterson's rich brother-in-law. He gives millions to various causes. One cause was the rodeo rider brother of the woman he loves - although he will clearly state that he did make a ton of money from that Bigfoot venture with Roger. He'll also tell you that he was involved in a hoax and has some regrets about that. But he won't go on camera and tell you that he helped Roger fake the film. He'll only say he gave Roger the money he needed. Why? He says, "It's in the family "and that's all he can say. By that he means he loves his wife and his wife loves her crazy brother that passed away and left one thing of value to his own wife and kids; the money-making "only film of Bigfoot in the flesh".

So those who know grin and bear it. As Al DeAtely says, "It's up to you to decide whether you believe it or not.... but there's no such thing as Bigfoot in my opinion."

As for me (Dfoot) I plan on my own expedition and I WILL FIND PATTY... I just need a little funding from the Bigfoot community for my research first. I guarantee results.

Dfoot falsehoods:
1. although he will clearly state that he did make a ton of money from that Bigfoot venture with Roger
2. He'll also tell you that he was involved in a hoax
3. the money-making "only film of Bigfoot in the flesh".

Now let see if you can prove any of this with say, a video of the appropriate person stating as such. An internet quote and/or a book by some bigfoot bigot, would not constitute proof.

 

[historian]

BUT, if you really want your bigfoot question answered, and bleev that you have all things bigfoot mastered, I suggest you do this:
First, go outside, preferably in a wooded area.
Second, lather yourself in pongid or hominid pheromones (love juice). You may do this step out of order.
Third, take your Louisville Slugger and commence to repeatedly bash a tree.
Fourth, take pictures to provide indisputable evidence/proof.

Actually, it is a lot easier than that. But then, that is perhaps the last thing that you wanted to hear. Have a nice day.

 

[historian]

That is to say, Can he back up the suit-talk with suit that looks realistic when filmed with a crappy camera.

If bigfoot was real, we wouldn't be having these Internet debates. We would all know 'it' was an actual creature.

No.

If Bigfoot was clearly not real, then we wouldn't be having these internet debates.

If the U.S. high school educational process included instruction on the presence of both higher dimensions and higher dimension people, then there also would be no internet debate, except for the foreignors.

If cloudshipsrule, knew squat about the higher dimensions and the higher dimension people, then he would not be a bigfoot skeptic.

If, ifs and butts were candy and nuts, then we would all have a Merry Christmas.

 

[cloudshipsrule]

Higher dimension people, huh.

So the real world isn't interesting enough for you? You have to make up your own worlds to entertain yourself? I did that when I was 10, but I grew up. Maybe it's time??

 

[SweatyYeti]

That is to say, Can he back up the suit-talk with suit that looks realistic when filmed with a crappy camera.

He can use any type of camera he wants.

The fact of the matter is....neither Dfoot, nor you, nor anyone else...who can say it's "pathetically easy to re-create"....is ever going to re-create it.

But, please feel free to prove me wrong! It would be pathetically easy, right?!!

 

[cloudshipsrule]

But, please feel free to prove me wrong! It would be pathetically easy, right?!!

You forgot to add pathetically pointless. Do we really need TWO fake videos of bigfoot around to argue about?

Didn't Penn and Teller make a video which fooled bigfooters until they admitted the prank?

 

[bruto]

I am going to have to agree with Sweaty at least a little here. I still believe that the film is a hoax, and that patty is a bloke in a suit, and that much of the reason for the film's longevity is the fortunate and possibly fortuitious result of just the right mix of clarity and indistinctness in the image. However, to suggest that it is therefore pathetically easy to duplicate seems a stretch. Had it been, then I don't see why others would not have done so, either to disprove it or to cash in on the phenomenon.

So I submit that, whether you consider it a real film of a bigfoot or a hoax, and if the latter whether you consider it a matter of luck or skill, history has suggested that it's not all that easy to reproduce.

 

[Hitch]

You forgot to add pathetically pointless. Do we really need TWO fake videos of bigfoot around to argue about?

Didn't Penn and Teller make a video which fooled bigfooters until they admitted the prank?

No. As soon as Penn and Teller admitted the hoax the Bigfooters decided they were never fooled at all.

If Bob Gimlin were to decide 40 years is long enough and pull out the Patty suit and the rest of the footage (showing Bob H. getting into the suit), Bigfooters would suddenly decide the P/G film never was very convincing.

But that would still not prove anything with regards to whether Bigfoot is real since Bigfoot it a pan-dimensional, invisible, shape-shifter and all that.

 

[GT/CS]

Not to worry, GT...I don't put people on "ignore". I'm more than happy to read anything anyone says here......and I'd respond to a lot more of it IF I had the free-time available to do so....and if I didn't mind wasting a good portion of it.
My free-time is simply too limited, and valuable, to post a lot here.

As for the dark bands.....I don't see them as an issue to be dealt with, since they don't appear in the HIGH-QUALITY reproduction of Frame 352....the Cibachrome image. That's all that I can say about them.

So why does the band show up in the pictures you posted when discussing hand movements? Are you saying that the band doesn't exist? You posted pictures that show a dark band between the glove and the sleeve. If you are interested in finding the truth you cannot just ignore that band.

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

I agree that recreating the film wouldn't be "pathetically easy." After all, recreating every lighting detail (I've heard that some of the "muscles" were found to be just light and shadows) and the exact movements of the "muscles" (I suspect that some of the movements were just random movements of the suit) would be maddeningly difficult. All you need is for one hair to zig where it should zag and the recreation will be dismissed as a failure, even if everything else was perfect. I suspect that the "fat ripple" on the leg is actually a loose flap of fabric (Perhaps part of the fake fur layer coming loose from the layer beneath it). I saw something like it when I was putting on a baggy pair of jeans while wearing long underwear awhile back. Much to my disappointment, I haven't been able to duplicate it.

I also suspect that when/if such a recreation occurs, proponents will fall back on arguments like "That just means they can recreate a real animal; Hollywood does that all the time" and "It took Hollywood this long to recreate it, so it must be real."

To be honest, I'm surprised that none of the proponents here have posted a picture of an ape with a "band" on their arms. Speaking of the Cibachrome,can anyone actually see Patty's hands in that image?

As for the "Sonoma footage," it fooled the BFRO and Rick Noll said that nothing about the film ruled out Bigfoot. Although he claimed not to know whether or not it's a hoax, he made a lot of arguments for it being real. And just in case someone at Cryptomundo tries to send that little tidbit down the meory hole, I've made this archive.

 

[historian]

Higher dimension people, huh.

So the real world isn't interesting enough for you? You have to make up your own worlds to entertain yourself? I did that when I was 10, but I grew up. Maybe it's time??

You should of stayed at a mental development level of age 10. That way you would have been better prepared to understand a universe that is a lot more complicated than you can possibly deal with today.