• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
LTC8K6 wrote:
Patty IS a man in a suit, until shown otherwise.


Thanks for writing that, LTC. I sincerely mean that. :)

It shows the "closed-minded belief" that the skeptics here have concerning Bigfoot. kitakaze said the exact same thing, and called it a "default position".

The fact of the matter is......Patty has NOT been proven to be a man-in-a-suit, and neither has she been proven to be a Bigfoot.

Hence, Patty IS an unknown.
There is evidence for her being a man-in-suit, and there is evidence for her being a real Bigfoot....but neither has been proven conclusively.
Those who state positively that Patty is one, or the other, aren't taking a position based on the weight of the EVIDENCE....they're taking it based on a preferential BELIEF.

You believe Patty is a man in a suit.....but you don't know that she is.

If you did know it...you'd be able to prove it. But you can't....so you don't. :D
 
Last edited:
The Moon is Made of Cheese, It has holes like cheese, and sometimes it is the color of cheese.

If I say 'The Moon is a satellite which orbits the earth, and it consists of rock', and someone else claims that 'it is not made of rock, but made of cheese', Then it is upon the person claiming 'Cheese' to prove such a claim. Yet according to you, I have to prove that the moon is made of rock, in order to disprove the claim of Cheese.
 
Last edited:
The Moon is Made of Cheese, It has holes like cheese, and sometimes it is the color of cheese.

If I say 'The Moon is a satellite which orbits the earth, and it consists of rock', and someone else claims that 'it is not made of rock, but made of cheese', Then it is upon the person claiming 'Cheese' to prove such a claim. Yet according to you, I have to prove that the moon is made of rock, in order to disprove the claim of Cheese.


That's a bogus analogy, Drewbot...because the composition of the moon has already been proven to be mineral....it's a known.

The identity of the PG film subject has not been proven to be either a human, or a Bigfoot.....it's an unknown.

If anyone here knows, with 100% certainty, what Patty is....let him prove it, right now.

Any takers????? :)
 
Last edited:
Hey, Sweaty, maybe Beckjord's right. No one has proven that Patty is not a shape-shifting, trans-dimensional, paranormal being. There's EVIDENCE that she is a flesh and blood creature, and there's EVIDENCE that she is paranormal.

Why do you act as if there is PROOF that she's not paranormal?

Why are you so closed-minded?

Come and join us!
Come and join us!

Bink!
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
That's a bogus analogy, Drewbot...because the composition of the moon has already been proven to be mineral....it's a known.

The identity of the PG film subject has not been proven to be either a human, or a Bigfoot.....it's an unknown.

You are so twisted by your emotional attachment to this film.

Science accepts that the moon is made of Rock and orbits the earth
Science accepts that there is no bigfoot, therefore, I do not need to prove what the PGF subject is. It is a person in a suit.
 
Drewbot wrote:
Assumption- There is no Bigfoot.
Conclusion- Patty is a person in a suit.

Proven.

Your "proof" is based entirely on an assumption.
An assumption is an unknown, by definition.

Therefore...by your own admission....you don't know that Patty is a human being.
And, therefore....your "proof" is nothing more than wishful thinking... on your part.


So don't ask me to prove there is no bigfoot.

I never asked you to 'prove there is no Bigfoot'. Show me where I have.

Are you drunk, dellusional, or just plain stupid??
 
Last edited:
LTC8K6 wrote:
Yet sweaty knows Patty is "inhuman"...which means sweaty has eliminated "human" somehow,

Like Drewbot...you're either drunk, dellusional, or stupid, LTC....I'm sorry to say.

When have I stated that "I know Patty is inhuman"?
 
Even if you show me that Patty is inhuman in several proportions, and I accept your arguments, it's what you'd see with a man in a suit anyway.

So go ahead and prove that a human head can't fit in Patty's head, for example.

It's interesting, but it does nothing for making a case that Patty is a sasquatch.
 
Last edited:
Well I, for one, do appreciate both Sweaty and historian giving us their views and helping us to understand the thinking that goes on behind this.

Sweaty represents the type of arguments posed by researchers like Green and Meldrum. Neither are insane, but those types tend to skew any info that's put before them to force it to fit their imaginations - or else they simply deny the evidence and use imagination to fill in the blanks.

historian
... well... he represents another part of Bigfootery that most researchers wish would vanish from the spotlight. Guess you could call it the "psychic invisible other dimensional magic creature viewpoint." There's still something to learned there too.

All the pics I've posted thus far are just old ones I've had sitting on disc or my drive, but today I'm going to clean up some stuff in my garage. If I find anything useful I'll make an arm or something out of it to show you.

Meanwhile, here's something that GT/CS might be interested in. Maybe a partial answer to one of the questions you've raised...

(***This is the scene that Janos, Wah Chang and John Chambers were working on when a young John Landis came around - btw)

Above - Janos reaches through the bars (wearing one of his own gorilla suits) and his elbow seems to hyper-extend. His arm is actually straight at this point. His forearm can't really bend around that way - yet it does here. The hand reaches further than his arm should be able to from this position.


Uh oh... now he's closed the hand of the suit. His arm is now shorter, but his elbow is still just on the edge of the metal bar. What to do??? Is he going to just hold the guy's shirt and keep his arm locked?


No! Oh Janos... you clever genius! He's drawn his arm back while bending his wrist. His hand isn't even all the way in the glove, yet he's able to keep it closed. Although by "Patty logic" we must assume that Janos has somehow made his forearm very, very short all of a sudden. That elbow needs to have lines drawn on it - that'll prove it's some sort of joint shifting creature... I mean, if you jerk the camera around and blur it enough.:p



And lastly, I've taken the liberty of creating one of those "Legend Meets Morons" skeletons. It cost over $75,000, but it was well worth it in order to prove that the legs of this creature cannot possibly be a man in a suit. The shoulders are also too wide; just as Dr. Krantz often explained regarding Patty's shoulders.

Sweatness - I promise I'll try to post larger images for you. I keep having to erase the old ones and I tend to take up way too much space here as it is. But I'll see if I can find some Patty-like image of fingers and asses moving. Of course, nothing is really Patty-like. Heck, we all know that. As long as Roger and the boys remain dead any image I post will never convince you. (But it's really not you as an individual I'm aiming this stuff at anyway).

historian - Please read carefully: Everything Bob H. has said regarding what he remembers of the suit and how it felt is absolutely correct. He has not changed anything and has passed several lie detector tests about this.

On the other hand, Morris had nothing to do with the making of Patty. He told Long that he did and Long believed him. Heironimus has no idea about where the suit came from other than the stories told by Roger to his brother and by Morris to Long and by others regarding Chambers. All he knows is he wore it and has described the real attributes perfectly. The thing Morris brought out and put on him did NOT match Heironimus' description or the film. Everyone knows this.

So... don't listen to every crackpot who tells you they were the only person making gorilla suits in the 60's when they were only buying them and re-selling them from other sources. And don't listen to every crackpot who claims to see babies hanging on the Patty suit or invisible Bigfeet in the trees. You may find yourself looking like a total fool. Really.

Now take care.... and remember...

"Pull the String! Pull the String!" - Bela (or may Michio Kaku, I get them confused around here):dig:
 
Last edited:
Too many pickles?

Patty remains a man in a suit until shown to be a sasquatch.

Why is this so hard for some people?


I asked you, LTC, to account for your false quote of me.


Here is my post again...

LTC8K6 wrote:
Quote:
Yet Sweaty knows that Patty is "inhuman"...which means sweaty has eliminated "human" somehow,

Like Drewbot...you're either drunk, dellusional, or stupid, LTC....I'm sorry to say.

When have I stated that "I know Patty is inhuman"?


You can't back-up your own statements, LTC.....and neither can you prove that Patty is a man in a suit.

Therefore, your posts are meaningless. 100% PURE BS.

THAT is what flies on this board....and that's why this board qualifies as a sewer.

LTC cannot back-up this statement of his....

Yet sweaty knows Patty is "inhuman"...



And neither can Drewbot back-up his false statements.
 
Last edited:
What is false about
"Bigfoot does not exist, therefore Patty is a man in a suit"

I have clearly shown that Bigfoot is not accepted by science as a real creature, therefore, Patty can not be a bigfoot, so Patty is a person in a suit.

There is nothing flawed or false about that line of reasoning.
 
You can't back-up your own statements, LTC.....and neither can you prove that Patty is a man in a suit.

Therefore, your posts are meaningless. 100% PURE BS.

THAT is what flies on this board....and that's why this board qualifies as a sewer.

LTC cannot back-up this statement of his....

Oh! You meant Patty was a human with an inhuman arm!

I'm sorry. My mistake. I apologize.

Why would I have to prove Patty is a man in a suit? That's not the claim, that's the default. The claim is that Patty is a sasquatch. Sweaty knows this of course.
 
Oh! You meant Patty was a human with an inhuman arm!

No...I didn't mean that, LTC! :)

AGAIN, you have misrepresented what I've said.

I stated, and meant, that Patty's body proportions are inhuman.

Patty may be either a man, or a Bigfoot....with inhuman body proportions.

I have stated that very clearly, in my posts.

Why have you TWICE misrepresented what I've said?

Are you an idiot....a drunk....or just plain dishonest?

Which is it, LTC? :eye-poppi



I'm sorry. My mistake. I apologize.


No...it's either your dishonesty...or your stupidity, LTC.

It was NOT a "mistake".
Again, more BS from you. You are full of it.



That's not the claim, that's the default. The claim is that Patty is a sasquatch.


You have made the following claim, LTC....

Patty IS a man in a suit, until shown otherwise.


Until you, or someone else, proves that Patty IS a human....it's not known that Patty is a human...by anyone....because to know something like that, you need proof of it.

If that statement is false.....then explain how you know that Patty is indeed a human....and how you arrived at that conclusion....without proof.
 
Last edited:
So we have to prove that Patty is a Human in a suit? Even though it is scientifically accepted that there is no Bigfoot? But,
You do not have to prove that Patty is an Unclassified, Hairy, Primate, which has eluded capture for centuries.

I get it. You are just messing with us. HA HA, of course you are just buying time until you can come up with your proof that Patty is a Bigfoot.


There is nobody out there trying to prove Ivory Billed Woodpeckers do not exist, there are only people out there trying to prove Ivory Billed Woodpeckers DO exist. It is scientifically accepted that IBW's do not exist, therefore noone is trying to prove that.
 
You have made the following claim, LTC....


Quote:
Patty IS a man in a suit, until shown otherwise.

Right, except for the bolded part. And everyone but you knows that I meant that is the default position. Well, you know it, but you like to play.

I said this too but you didn't quote it:
Patty remains a man in a suit until shown to be a sasquatch.

Patty is, by default, a man in a suit, until someone shows otherwise.
 
again, its so easy when you push the burden of proof.

Why would anyone have to *prove* that Patty is human, when the only evidence available is some grainy, shaky hoax video?

I absolutely agree - Patty being a human in a suit is the *default* position. Any attempt to claim Patty is inhuman (a rather extraordinary claim) requires extraordinary evidence.

It is not the skeptics fault that the BF proponents cannot produce reliable evidence.

What Sweaty is saying amounts to "the default position is that Patty is supernatural. If you wish to disprove that, here's some crappy footage".

Sorry pal, the real world doesnt work like that. Unfortunately you're talking the talk, but you're not walking the walk. Show us extraordinary evidence to back your claim, unless you're not claiming Patty is supernatural, in which case there is no argument.

So again Sweaty, what is your claim, and what is your evidence? The burden of proof is yours.
 
Last edited:
Patty is too tall to be a man.
A man in a suit could look too tall.

Patty's arms are too long to be a man's.
A suit could make the arms appear that way.

Patty is too bulky to be a man.
A suit could make a man look that bulky.

Patty's head is too big to be a man's.
A suit's head could appear to be too big.

Patty's arm proportions are wrong for a man.
A suit can cause that appearance.

Patty walks strangely for a man.
The walk has been successfully demonstrated in a bulky suit.

Patty's legs are too massive to be a man's.
A suit often includes leg padding.

Patty's fingers bend.
This is no problem for a man in a suit.

Patty's feet are too big.
Big suit feet are old hat.

Patty's feet sink too far into the soil to be a man.
I haven't seen any evidence of this, but such prints are easily made by men.

Patty has no neck.
A suit can cause this appearance.

Patty's foot prints were 14.5" long.
Were they?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom