Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[GT/CS]

mangler wrote:



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".

The band, Sweaty. Don't forget the band in the pictures you posted here that proves it's a bloke in a suit.

 

[manofthesea]

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.

This statement, to me, represents that you took a mental beating at BFF. Or maybe at cryptomundo.

 

[kitakaze]

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

Actually, you did and...

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

...Oops! You did it again. You see, the original request was to show something that approaches the PGF in terms of realism. Now you're moving the goal posts by saying that it needs to be out in the open. Why? The illusion of long arms is impossible to hoax? What's the matter with you?

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

Whoops! There they go again. Tell us, Sweaty, what are Patty's body proportions?

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

I see a diaper butt and ridiculous hairy cans in one picture and the BBC's botched embarrassment of an attempt to recreate the subject in the other.

Legs? So what? You think the perception of musculature in your example is better than mine?

 

[kitakaze]

This statement, to me, represents that you took a mental beating at BFF. Or maybe at cryptomundo.

That's nice. I'm not surprised by such deductions. And maybe bigfoot got that climber.

I've never posted at the BFF though I did for a brief period before I got sick of my posts being deleted.

 

[mangler]

Sweaty,

So these are your definitive words, ”may well be”, ”may also show”? I don’t see much of an argument with those word’s, I also don’t see anything verifiable in either the film, or video.

Sweaty, you need to pick-up the pace. Your arguments may well be going down the crapper; they may also show your lack of critical thinking.

You are a funny little . . . . though.


m

 

[manofthesea]

That's nice. I'm not surprised by such deductions. And maybe bigfoot got that climber.

I've never posted at the BFF though I did for a brief period before I got sick of my posts being deleted.

Probably.

Lurking here at jref isn't going to have the slightest effect on sasquatchery. You need to "take your game" to BFF. Your reluctance, fear, and trepidation is unwarranted. Finding this forum, for a bigfooter, is almost like finding a decent nightclub in Japan, amongst all the dark alleys containing 'freak sex shops'.

 

[erikbeckjord]

Probably.

Lurking here at jref isn't going to have the slightest effect on sasquatchery. You need to "take your game" to BFF. Your reluctance, fear, and trepidation is unwarranted. Finding this forum, for a bigfooter, is almost like finding a decent nightclub in Japan, amongst all the dark alleys containing 'freak sex shops'.

Reply: Exactly correct.

And of two CSICOP skeptics, one a fellow, who are are reported to have gone
out of their offices and into the woods, one became a firm believer. She found
tracks all by herself.



Monstro

 

[manofthesea]

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.

I think you mean cabalistic cult; not the couch jumping, Tom Cruise type. And it's ill informed and/or ignorant disinformation peddlers, in regards to the view of septical denialists.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

You see, the original request was to show something that approaches the PGF in terms of realism. Now you're moving the goal posts by saying that it needs to be out in the open.

That isn't "moving the goalposts", kitty. You're simply playing games with technicalities.

The challenge here is very simple......provide a video which is COMPARABLE to the PG film in the REALISM of the subject.
One requirement of that is that the subject be OUT IN THE OPEN so that it's body proportions, body contour, and body flexibility can be seen, and measured, with a COMPARABLE degree of resolution as the PG film.


This is simple common sense.......but when dealing with skeptics on this board, who are clearly more intent on playing games than searching for the truth..."common sense" is not acceptable.
One has to deal with "technicality word games" here...discussing an issue with skeptics as if you're in a court of law battling an opposing lawyer.

The fact of the matter is, kitakaze....you'll EAT the goalposts before we're done debating the realism of Patty compared to the total laughableness of all the other comparable videos.

Get out the salt and pepper, buddy....you'll need them!

Here's your first taste of goalpost......you failed to answer my question, kittysuzie......not surprisingly....

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?

 

[historian]

Yeegad, body bands!!!! MY GOD, IT'S A BLOKE IN A SUIT!!!!

Obviously the above is no more a bloke in a suit than the beautiful, well endowed number below is. But we have to put up with flakes that actually believe that hair color, hair weave and/or shadow anomolies, are proof positive that Patty is a 7 ft - 3 inch x 700 lb bloke in a suit, with a cone head, butt crack, and hairy breasts. Bring in a case of extra straight-jackets, for the LIVING IN DENIAL crowd here, fast.

 

[erikbeckjord]

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.

Geez-- isn't there anyone who knows anything here?

We used the same model camera as Patterson, and then we did it again
using a reflex Boxlex 16mm.

Same lens.

NO DIFFERENCE.

Bink!

 

[erikbeckjord]

kitakaze wrote:


That isn't "moving the goalposts", kitty. You're simply playing games with technicalities.

The challenge here is very simple......provide a video which is COMPARABLE to the PG film in the REALISM of the subject.
One requirement of that is that the subject be OUT IN THE OPEN so that it's body proportions, body contour, and body flexibility can be seen, and measured, with a COMPARABLE degree of resolution as the PG film.


This is simple common sense.......but when dealing with skeptics on this board, who are clearly more intent on playing games than searching for the truth..."common sense" is not acceptable.
One has to deal with "technicality word games" here...discussing an issue with skeptics as if you're in a court of law battling an opposing lawyer.

The fact of the matter is, kitakaze....you'll EAT the goalposts before we're done debating the realism of Patty compared to the total laughableness of all the other comparable videos.

Get out the salt and pepper, buddy....you'll need them!

Here's your first taste of goalpost......you failed to answer my question, kittysuzie......not surprisingly....

Reply -

Did in 1981, and all the major researchers, Green, Meldrum, etc, have copies
of the video copy off the 16mm.

NOT EVEN CLOSE to Patty.

Bink,bink,bink!

el m.

 

[erikbeckjord]

coughgagcoughturkeyturdscoughgagcoughcompletepuppypoopcoughgagcoughbeammeupscottycoughgagcoughcaptianIthinkshe'sgointablowcoughgagcoughandtheoscargoestoDfootcoughgagcoughformanufacturingcompletefalsehoodswithastraightfacecoughgagcough

Reply: Bob H. I met him in Yakima. VERY UNIMPRESSIVE GUY.

about 5'10" - built not even as good as a fullback.

Lives a mere 4 blocks from Gimlin.

el m

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Am I the only one who thinks that the legs on the Optic Nerve/BBC suit are longer/come up higher than they do on Patty? I think that'd skew the comparison of proportions somewhat. There's also the issue of the leafy branch obscuring one of the legs.

with a COMPARABLE degree of resolution as the PG film.

Well there's a bit of a problem with that request, Sweaty; you'll be hard pressed to find another film with resolution as bad as that of the P/G film.

You know, it's gotten to the point where I can't enjoy the simple pleasure of watching Europeans in monster costumes terrorizing people without thinking of how it can be compared to Bigfoot movies. Now I can't watch this without thinking about how the red-faced Krampus seems to have long, Pattyesque arms. Thanks a lot, guys...

What's next...I won't be able to look up information about other mythical European monsters without thinking of orangutan-like, pongoid Bigfoot faces? NOOOOO!

But since we're on the subject of supposed Bigfoot films, there's a point I'd like to bring up about theMemorial Day footage...

[QOUTE=SweatyYeti]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.
[/QUOTE]

I think this sheds some light on the issue. In fact, I think I can see the mask removal bit that Dfoot was talking about in another thread. However, I should note that others have argued for this being misidentified footage of a person in a ghillie suit instead of it being a deliberate hoax.

But we have to put up with flakes that actually believe that hair color, hair weave and/or shadow anomolies, are proof positive that Patty is a 7 ft - 3 inch x 700 lb bloke in a suit,

If Patty is over seven feet tall, why is "she" shorter than Jim McClarin when they walk under that tree knot? Come to think of it, how can one "see" invisibility?

 

[Correa Neto]

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

Oh, really?

So, could you please show us this scientific research?

Prove BH is a liar.

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

Oh, really?

So, are you a walking liar detector?

Never been duped?

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

Oh, really?

I noticed you have dodged the question I presented. Let me present it again:

There are contradictions in the accounts from Paterson and Gimlim. There are contradictions among the versions presented by Hieronimus, Meldrum and Titmus.

How can you know who's the liar? Or who are the liars?

See above for answer.

Flawed circular reasoning coupled with dodges.

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.

You Neal, you are the one who's with nothing but fantasies.

You -as well as no other defender of the "PGF shows a real bigfoot" position- can not back your claim. All you have is wishfull thinking coupled with shaky reasoning and weak evidence.

Your specific position is among the weakest. Your fantasies speak against you.

Have you managed to figure out for, example, how X rays and EMPs can erase DVD data?

 

[Correa Neto]

Sweaty's am lenght comparison is a prime example of how flawed some arguments for Patty being a real animal are.

Are we sure that both figures have their arms exactly at the same position relative to the cameras? All it takes to ruin the comparison is the guy wearing Optical Nerve's costume having his arm a bit less paralell to the camera than the guy who was wearing Patty costume.

Not to mention that IM argument crumbles when one realizes that human proportions can easilly be changed by costumes.

Sweaty, please calculate Barney's IM

And explain how human heads can fit at these costumes:

 

[Drewbot]

While DFoot may never find the exact Patty Suit, His finds are of the greatest importance, because they cripple the GAAAAAGH! arguments relating to; No one was using latex in the 60's, Costume technology of the 60's couldn't look like the PGF, Bob H. could have been telling the truth regarding the Football helmet construction.

 

[Sherman Bay]

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.

Padding, Dude. Ever hear of a fat suit?

A fatsuit is a bodysuit-like undergarment, sometimes used to thicken a thin actor or actress into a fat character with prosthetic makeup.

 

[Dfoot]

Atomic Mystery Monster - That comparison photo from the BBC show is one of the things that got me interested in looking for the true origin of the suit. I worked with JOHN VULICH and the Optic Nerve guys on BUFFY. One day he gave me a video of that program. Seemed pretty straight forward. They took an ape suit off the rack that had no resemblance to "Patty" and used it to talk about how padding fits under suits.

The guy from the BBC had someone walk in it while he demonstrated his idea of how close Patterson and Gimlin were and how odd it was that they didn't follow it, etc. His idea was to show what would have taken place using the same camera. No one ever said they were trying to copy the Patty suit - yet that is what keeps cropping up. You can make the arms drag the ground if you like. That photo comp is so stupid it really makes me wonder about the other things listed as "proof" on the BFRO website.

One example is the silly video from the Memorial Day footage. Not only is that just a loose fitting store bought Halloween suit, but you can actually SEE the guy taking off the mask in the shot. Yet it is touted as being of the "best footage" variety. That's stunning.

When I'm finished with the Superbowl commercial I'm working on I'm going to put Bob H. IN the Patty suit IN MOTION on video - much like you can see in these still frames.

Sweaty Yeti - Here I pulled a stretch tee-shirt and pants over some foam I'd glued together and attached it to feet I molded out of latex. I'm walking the walk - not merely talking and drawing lines. I want to talk to a few of the people involved in the real making of Patty before I spend any time making an imitation of her. It's not like I've ever done this before. (*btw- To make what you're seeing here takes only a couple of hours)

I had some sheets of thin rubber left over from a job so I glued it to some foam and shaped a butt. I then applied a little gray paint.

The middle pics show my first attempt at making a leg. I'd noticed that Patty uses a knee pad at the joint. This was something Wah Chang and Janos did all the time.

To imitate a Patterson cast I poured plaster of paris into a pan and molded a footprint shape with my hand. I then poured bathroom chalking into the mold and made a great print (with vertical dermal ridges) that I could glue to shoes for some hiking if I wished to do so.

Aside from the "mid-tarsal break" that rubber feet make, I've learned (through the experience of being a suit-wearing stuntman) that if you wear your boots inside big rubber feet sometimes the boot print will show through and actually imprint the dirt.

Just thought I'd mention that since this cast from a well known Bigfoot footprint expert shows not only the ridges of a boot in the cast - but someone wearing those same boots appears to have stepped next to the print too. Sort of like the way Freeman posed with his finger in close up next to a dermal ridge he'd faked using his own finger.

Is this what they call testicular hypertrophy? I'd say these funsters try to push it as far as they can to see who'll bite.

It's hard to admit when you've been hoodwinked. Al DeAtley said that it was no problem convincing Green and others the PG film was real because it was the proof they needed to make people stop laughing at them.

One con man said that instead of dumb people he always looked for smart people to con. He said if you give them what they already think is true then they'll come up with excuses to make it real that you've never thought of before. This is what we see happening today I'm sorry to say.

 

[SweatyYeti]

Correa Neto wrote:

Sweaty, please calculate Barney's IM


And explain how human heads can fit at these costumes:

Those are really nice pictures you posted, Correa.....but if you want to make a particular point...please feel free to demonstrate it....by highlighting something.

Pictures of Barney do NOT constitute "scientific analysis", in and of themselves.

Is that not true???