Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[kitakaze]

I recommend that you go visit BFF. You'll find experts ready and willing to discuss all things bigfoot.

Experts on what? Bigfoot?

 

[kitakaze]

DFOOT, what is your shopping list for a recreation of the PGF?

 

[manofthesea]

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.

Which step(s) do I need to leave out?

And no, I'm not having a nice day. Quite a few of our light poles came down in a recent storm, and we're all a bit stressed. But, thanks.

By the way, now that you keep addressing me, I have a few questions. Is invisible bigfoot hairy? Does he have big feet? Does it ingest earthly edibles? Basically, what makes it a bigfoot? If a real bigfoot came close to an invisible bigfoot, would it's long hair stand out straight?

 

[manofthesea]

Experts on what? Bigfoot?

I don't know what they're on. Nobody's on bigfoot, only another bigfoot.

 

[kitakaze]

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.

Experts on what? Bigfoot?

I don't know what they're on. Nobody's on bigfoot, only another bigfoot.

I'll take the goofy answer as an admission of the flawed nature of the original statement. That said, I think I'll continue discussing bigfootery in a place that requires reliable evidence for a real creature before giving the possibility credibility.

BTW:

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.

Interesting suggestions. Can you point to any successful examples? You know, the kind with reliable evidence.

If not, then I'd suggest Chinese poetry would be just as helpful.

 

[kitakaze]

I will get to that....I just haven't had time to highlight Correa's gorilla suit pictures yet.
I'll get them posted no later than Friday....I promise!

Promises, promises. That's OK, Sweaty. You get around to that when you have the time. I would suggest in future holding off opinions like the one you expressed about the various vintage suits that Correa posted until you can substantiate them. The "I'll get to that later." routine get's a little tired.

 

[SweatyYeti]

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.

It's nice to see some honest, objective analysis from a skeptic here.

You are 100% correct Bruto....it's not the least bit easy to re-create the realism of the Patterson film subject.

Here's a fine example of the HUGE difference between your average "Suit by Shagmaster", and Patty.......

EVERYTHING about the BBC's recreation says "man-in-suit". All the body proportions are that of a fully-modern human being....while Patty's body proportions are different than a modern human's.

Notice the complete lack of body contour on the leg of the Shagmaster Suit.....and the distinct, accurate contour of Patty's massive leg.

One excellent example of her inhuman body proportions is the 60 degree slope (which is actually closer to the horizontal than the vertical ) of Patty's forehead, in profile...

It's extremely different from a human head shape...and distinctly different from most, if not all, Bigfoot suits...

It's absolutely laughable how skeptics here can say "it's easy to re-produce the realism of Patty".....yet when confronted about it, they'll run and hide behind their pathetically lame excuses......such as...."well, nobody cares"....."it's pathetically pointless"...."the proponents won't accept it".

Excuses....excuses....nothing but BS and excuses from our skeptical friends on the Randi forum. James should be proud!!

The fact remains.....40 years and counting....nothing close to the realism of Patty exists of film. And none of the skeptics here will ever come up with a comparable video.

 

[kitakaze]

Excuses....excuses....nothing but BS and excuses from our skeptical friends on the Randi forum. James should be proud!!

Sweaty, name the regular JREF BF skeptic posters who have said the PGF is pathetically easy to duplicate.

For the record, I agree with bruto's comments on this point.

Anyway, you want comparable and have been given it in the past. I give it to you again:

For Kerry, Sweaty, Lyndon, and all the Pattycake lurkers who demand a bigfoot suit comparable to Patty:

Harley Hoffman's bigfoot video.

WOW! Look at those muscles! Check the glossy short black hair! Neck? What neck?

By all means, proceed to move the goal posts by complaining it's not contemporaneous with Patty.

Sure looks comparable to me.

The fact remains.....40 years and counting....nothing close to the realism of Patty exists of film. And none of the skeptics here will ever come up with a comparable video.

I think you spoke to fast. Although the Hoffman movie may not be as long or show as much, what it does show is certainly comparable to the PGF.

Nevermind that, it's wildly entertaining that footer's like you can say comments like the above without the slightest sense of irony.

Hey buddy,

40 years and that's the best you got!?

Truly ROTFLMAO.

 

[Geno]

Seems like whenever someone finally gets around to duplicating some part of the film they do quite well. Krantz, Dahinden, etc said for many years no one could walk like Patty, yet when recently an actor wore a suit and practiced a little he did walk just like Patty quite easily, even Meldrum was forced to concede that point.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Anyway, you want comparable and have been given it in the past. I give it to you again:

That video is not comparable to the PG film.
The subject is not out in the open....you can't see any body proportions.


Nice try....but.........as you said, kitty....

40 years and that's the best you got!?

 

[manofthesea]

.

BTW:Interesting suggestions. Can you point to any successful examples? You know, the kind with reliable evidence.

If not, then I'd suggest Chinese poetry would be just as helpful.

What would you consider reliable evidence?

Chinese poetry? Good for what? Chinese bigfoot? (anything over a size 6 would be considered big for them)

 

[manofthesea]

I think you spoke to fast.
.

I think that your footerbot is running on Chinese batteries. Try Duracell.
(or check your spelling, they have a program if your spelling abilities are limited)

(The mole must be thankful that you came to his aid. Roll 5-4.)

 

[kitakaze]

What would you consider reliable evidence?

Reliable evidence of a successful method of producing a bigfoot encounter? Well, what do you think? Certainly not anecdotes like the ones you've shared before. I regard reliable evidence for bigfoot as that which is unreasonably difficult to explain with a mundane cause not including the existence of a large, bipedal, as-of-yet unclassified primate living across the North American continent.

Chinese poetry?

I assert that Chinese poetry has been just as successful at producing bigfoot encounters as covering oneself with pongid or hominid pheromones or driving around at night with a gun.

Chinese bigfoot? (anything over a size 6 would be considered big for them)

Hey, that's almost funny. Now you've gone and given an evil skeptic an opportunity to make it seem like they know more about bigfoot then you do.

It's raining yeren!

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/ASIA/CHINA/as_ch001.htm

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/living9.html

http://www.newanimal.org/yeren.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeren

 

[kitakaze]

I think that your footerbot is running on Chinese batteries. Try Duracell.
(or check your spelling, they have a program if your spelling abilities are limited)

(The mole must be thankful that you came to his aid. Roll 5-4.)

Not that I don't appreciate your pointing out a typo of mine but I'd love to read a post of yours that explains why you think the Hoffman movie is incomparable to the PGF as opposed to quibbling over minor typing errors.

If that's the best you got then let me help too- You missed where I absent-mindedly put a possessive s on the word footer when I meant to use plural tense and I just let it sit there.

 

[mangler]

Sweaty, Sweaty,

I took the opportunity to edit your statement a bit. Hope you don't mind.

Excuses....excuses....nothing but BS and excuses from our Bigfooting friends. The fact remains.....40 years and counting....nothing close to realism in all of the Bigfoot world, period.

Where's the Bigfoot Sweaty? Show us the frickin bigfoot! Do you know what a legend is? It's unverifiable! Do you know what the PGF is? It's unverifiable!

Must . . . have . . . verifacation . . . no . . . verification . . . for this . . . fantastic . . . claim.


m

 

[manofthesea]

Reliable evidence of a successful method of producing a bigfoot encounter? Well, what do you think? Certainly not anecdotes like the ones you've shared before. I regard reliable evidence for bigfoot as that which is unreasonably difficult to explain with a mundane cause not including the existence of a large, bipedal, as-of-yet unclassified primate living across the North American continent.

I assert that Chinese poetry has been just as successful at producing bigfoot encounters as covering oneself with pongid or hominid pheromones or driving around at night with a gun.

Hey, that's almost funny. Now you've gone and given an evil skeptic an opportunity to make it seem like they know more about bigfoot then you do.




]

Can you give me an example of bigfoot evidence?

What's with the Chinese poetry? You don't mean that famous red book, do you? I know that Sun Yat Sen was educated here in Hawaii, and his daughter recently released a "poetry" book, concerning her father, mostly. But it wasn't really 'poetic'. Depressing, if anything.

Evil skeptic? That is funny. But, like I told you MANY times, I've never studied bigfoot. Never spent many a day and night reading books by bigfoot experts. I'd certainly hope that you gleaned something useful about bigfoot, during all the years of study and analysis.

 

[kitakaze]

That video is not comparable to the PG film.
The subject is not out in the open....you can't see any body proportions.

Now that's not very sporting of you. The movie shows what appears to be a massively muscled back and shoulders of a creature moving among the trees with a stature and posture comparable to that of the PGF subject. The creature also has hair that appears to me to be very comparable to that which is seen on Patty.

As is boringly predictable with you footers, you are moving the goalposts. If you wanted to see a film that is the same as the PGF then that is what you should have specified. I have never said the PGF would be pathetically easy to recreate. I think Patterson put great effort into his hoax. I think the Hoffman movie shows a hoaxer mimicking Patterson's work but being unable to do so convincingly tries to obscure that flaws.

But here's the problem, Sweaty. You are demanding we show you something that matches the realism of the PGF when that term is completely subjective. Most here don't consider diapers butts or rock-hard, too low, hairy cans as eliciting the word 'realism'. I did show you another film showing what appears to be muscle movement on a massive frame. You're wearing your scoftic denialism on your sleeve.

Nice try....but.........as you said, kitty....

40 years and that's the best you got!?

I know it's hard for you, Sweat, but maybe you can try putting together some reasonable explanation for why if there really are bigfoots all across the continent living, breeding, and dying, the PGF is the best you guys can come up with.

It's pathetic that you guys can't do better.

 

[SweatyYeti]

mangler wrote:

Excuses....excuses....nothing but BS and excuses from our Bigfooting friends. The fact remains.....40 years and counting....nothing close to realism in all of the Bigfoot world, period.

Wrong....period. Patty is realistic-looking, and may well be the "real thing".

The Memorial Day Video may also show a real Bigfoot, with an infant. No hoax scenario reasonably accounts for all the various aspects of the video, including what exactly is being lifted up onto the main subject's shoulders and/or head.

I've pointed out just a couple of things about Patty that are far and away more real-looking than a typical bigfoot/gorilla suit....and there are plenty more where those came from.

So, your statement is just plain wrong....there are indeed purported Bigfoot videos which rise above the level of "laughable hoax attempts".

 

[kitakaze]

Can you give me an example of bigfoot evidence?

Reliable? None. Claimed? Reems.

Nevermind that. If you can't answer the question, there's no need to reverse it.

I'd certainly hope that you gleaned something useful about bigfoot, during all the years of study and analysis.

Yes, I did. Bigfoot is almost certainly a myth represented as reality by a self-perpetuating culture of cultish believers resistant to rational thinking and who thrive on mutual back patting and an imagined enmity with evil denialist scoftics.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

As is boringly predictable with you footers, you are moving the goalposts.

I haven't moved the goalposts one damn inch, kitty.

Show me a video in which one can SEE body contour comparable to Patty's......

Show us a comparable realistic-looking video in which body proportions can be SEEN and MEASURED, like Patty's can be.

You can't.....can you??

You are demanding we show you something that matches the realism of the PGF when that term is completely subjective.

No, it's not subjective. Can you see a difference in the realism of the legs of the 2 subjects pictured above???

If so....what makes one more realistic than the other? Is it simply "personal preference"....or is it because of some objective observation?