• 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.
Those are not 'real' bigfoot prints, where is the mid-tarsal break? where are the dermal ridges? Why are they so close together, don't you know about stride length and such? Plus, that sure looks like a boot track in the lower left corner.
 
Drewbot said:
Those are not 'real' bigfoot prints, where is the mid-tarsal break? where are the dermal ridges? Why are they so close together, don't you know about stride length and such? Plus, that sure looks like a boot track in the lower left corner.
Click to expand...

I will attempt to explain a few basics that are as plain as the nose on Drewbot's face.

When a Bigfoot is just mulling around in one area, THERE IS NO HUGE STRIDE LENGTH and THERE IS NO PUSHOFF. Why? Now listen real closely on this one. This may be top secret so I will try and whisper it. "Because he is not going anywhere."

Furthermore:
When a footprint sits in wet mud, dermal ridges are gone almost immediately. You can write that one down on the back of your hand, just so you don't forget.

I demand that Drewbot pass an I.Q. test, any I.Q. test, before he is allowed to post again to this thread!!!!!!!
 
Funny, but my point is, how can you verify that it is a Bigfoot print, if the identifying characteristics arent there? Bigfootdom Dictionary says that a bigfoot print has; mid-tarsal breaks, and dermal ridges, barring those, you just have evidence of a human hot-foot.

And that still looks like a bootprint in the lower left corner.

Any one seen Beckjord around?
 
Last edited:
Those prints appear to be those of the aquatic species of Bigfoot. Since the front of the foot is nearly squared off to allow for better fin like action. The possible boot toe print does not have water in it like the actual foot prints, so it is likely less than 10 minutes old. Whereas the Bigfoot prints could be as old as several days and may have weathered several high tides.
 
Those prints appear to be those of the aquatic species of Bigfoot. Since the front of the foot is nearly squared off to allow for better fin like action. The possible boot toe print does not have water in it like the actual foot prints, so it is likely less than 10 minutes old. Whereas the Bigfoot prints could be as old as several days and may have weathered several high tides.
 
At least if Beckjord were here, he would be able to straighten you out on those footprints, even he would agree with me on this. Historian has realized how foolish he was to claim those as Bigfoot prints, but the ironic thing is, that those prints are as indicative of Bigfoot, as those that are considered by footdom as actual bigfoot prints.
 
Last edited:
Drewbot said:
At least if Beckjord were here, he would be able to straighten you out on those footprints, even he would agree with me on this.

Historian has realized how foolish he was to claim those as Bigfoot prints, but the ironic thing is, that those prints are as indicative of Bigfoot, as those that are considered by footdom as actual bigfoot prints.
Click to expand...

This is a perfect example of the smoke and mirrors/skeptic show that goes on daily around here. In the first sentence, Drewbot, makes an outrageous claim that Beckjord will agree with him on this or anything else, for that matter. Especially when Beckjord has no history of agreeing with Drewbot.

In the second sentence, Drewbot attempts to put words in my mouth that I neither said nor thought about. This is in a vain attempt for Drewbot to create the illusion that he is correct about his position and that I somehow have changed my position in the few short minutes since the picture was posted.

In the second half of the second sentence, Drewbot appears to lose touch with reality altogether and has presented evidence of incoherant babbling for all the world to see.

Since Drewbot's speciality is hollywood costumes, he appears to be panicing as he is completely out of his element in attempting to sew seeds of doubt in regard to multiple and actual Bigfoot footprints that are quite clear against the mud background.

Where is that I.Q. test? WAITER!
 
Last edited:
Patty appears to be half aquatic and half regular, with a human like right foot (perfectfoot), and a squared off left foot (blockfoot). She must swim in circles.


017.jpg




frame72.jpg
 
Correa's post, #9617, is 100% pure BS....


Skeleton11.jpg

Skeletons22.jpg



In the original skeletal image of Patty...the length of the hand is shorter than the length of the forearm....but in Correa's image, the lengths of the hand and forearm are the same.

Nice work, Correa.....you BS artist. ;)

And heck, its something I made just for fun, without any special care.
Click to expand...

And without any thought, either!
 
Last edited:
Would you let your mother loan Roger Patterson money?

Would you let Roger Patterson come over and use your telephone?

Would you become pals with Roger Patterson, take him on expeditions, wear a phony indian wig, use your transportation and help him film a living sasquatch?

Not me!
 
We could ask Beckjord what scenes are on his copy of the film but he was banned a long time ago.
 
Drewbot said:
At least if Beckjord were here, he would be able to straighten you out on those footprints, even he would agree with me on this. Historian has realized how foolish he was to claim those as Bigfoot prints, but the ironic thing is, that those prints are as indicative of Bigfoot, as those that are considered by footdom as actual bigfoot prints.
Click to expand...
That will be the day, when historian acknowledges the foolishness of anything he says. Why do that when you can just invent a new aquatic species of bigfoot to explain it? Whatever is wrong is made right by instant inference.
 
Expert Defends Patterson Bigfoot Film (December 1, 1997)

Interesting article from the 30th Anniversary of the PGF.

John Green said:
Patterson has photographs not only of the creature, but also of its tracks, and these shots show the men's own tracks all around the Sasquatch tracks. It is obvious from their depth that the big tracks are made by something several times heavier than the people.
Click to expand...

Is he talking about the filmed "stomp test" that we have not seen?
 
William Parcher said:
Expert Defends Patterson Bigfoot Film (December 1, 1997)

Interesting article from the 30th Anniversary of the PGF.



Is he talking about the filmed "stomp test" that we have not seen?
Click to expand...

Gee, you left out the best part.

"Further research may correct some of our findings, but it seems most improbable that the positive result can be voided. Hence we confidently give this verdict:

"The Patterson-Gimlin movie is an authentic documentary of a genuine female hominoid, popularly known as Sasquatch or Bigfoot, filmed in the Bluff Creek area of Northern California not later than October 1967, when it was viewed by Rene Dahinden and other investigators."
 
not later than October 1967
Click to expand...

Shouldn't that be not earlier than Oct. 1967?

Obviously it could not have been filmed any later than when it was first seen.

The question was always whether it might have been filmed earlier, iirc.

A verdict after a trial where the opposition was not allowed to participate loses most of it's effect.

John Green thought Ivan Marx filmed a genuine bigfoot too...sorta takes the shine off his endorsement of the PGF...
 
Stop the incivility, and concentrate on making your points without getting personal, or dishing out insults. Surely we can manage one Bigfoot thread that manages to discuss the issues without needing to be moderated?
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom