• 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.
reply:

How can you say that the interdimensional bigfoot is not the truth?

How can you know?

You cannot limit the truth to what you would like.

Monstro

You cannot attribute truth to what you would like either.

Nonsensical delusions and hallucinations and just plain bull**** can be very hard to disprove, but this alone does not make them easier to believe.
 
Sweaty, why do you keep ignoring my question about Patty's clearly visible wrist band?

Arm-length ratios don't mean diddlysquat when there is a very distinct band between the glove and the sleeve in the pictures you posted.

Are you ever going to explain why the pictures you posted have that band?


reply:

when there are so many imposssibles to refute, like track depth.
the wrist band is meaningless.
 
Ultimate answer.

Patty is a shape-shifter. She shifts from a cheezy hoaxer suit back to a paranormal primate
every few frames or so. JUST TO CONFUSE ANALYSTS IN THE FUTURE.

MEMORIZE, DO NOT IGNORE.

Monstro
 
You cannot attribute truth to what you would like either.

Nonsensical delusions and hallucinations and just plain bull**** can be very hard to disprove, but this alone does not make them easier to believe.


reply: you cannot refute something just by calling it B.S. or too far out...

For this to work, you need to be someone really important and say who you are.

M
 
reply:

when there are so many imposssibles to refute, like track depth.
the wrist band is meaningless.

You mean like the tracks Roger and Bob G. made after the film was actually shot? Tracks like you, I, or anyone could make in the soft sand and mud?

I'm more concerned with the total lack of wrist band I'm displaying below.

Forgetting to add skin and hair leaves my finger wiggle looking as if someone just moved a hand inside the top part of a glove. Unlike Patty, of course, who could never be Bob Heironimus as it would take him years of training to be able to move like that - even if a suit could be constructed that would allow the hand to open more.

Stretching your hand in suits wasn't invented until 2008, I believe. At least that's what the NSA ordered me to say.
 
You cannot attribute truth to what you would like either.

Nonsensical delusions and hallucinations and just plain bull**** can be very hard to disprove, but this alone does not make them easier to believe.



Reply: BUt YOu, a non-researcher, have no right to label other people's field work as bull**** or nonsense JUST BECAUSE IT MAKES YOU UNHAPPY.

and who are you, what work have you done on this, other than sitting in mommy's basement on your computer?
 
You mean like the tracks Roger and Bob G. made after the film was actually shot? Tracks like you, I, or anyone could make in the soft sand and mud?

I'm more concerned with the total lack of wrist band I'm displaying below.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/7766477dc303735d5.gif[/qimg]
Forgetting to add skin and hair leaves my finger wiggle looking as if someone just moved a hand inside the top part of a glove. Unlike Patty, of course, who could never be Bob Heironimus as it would take him years of training to be able to move like that - even if a suit could be constructed that would allow the hand to open more.

Stretching your hand in suits wasn't invented until 2008, I believe. At least that's what the NSA ordered me to say.



Reply: Dfoot, I call you not an expert.

I do not care how many thousands of posts you have.

The sand was NOT soft, and Gimlin could hardly make a mark on it.

They did not make tracks, or their slight marks on the side would have been noticed by TITMUS.

Back to you:cool:r BFF room.
 
Reply: Dfoot, I call you not an expert.

I do not care how many thousands of posts you have.

The sand was NOT soft, and Gimlin could hardly make a mark on it.

They did not make tracks, or their slight marks on the side would have been noticed by TITMUS.

Back to you:cool:r BFF room.

Hmmmm. I've barely made a hundred or so. If I only had multiple identities (like some folks do) maybe I could do better.:eye-poppi Unfortunately, posting all over the place won't help either of us to become experts.

I could help with your vision of what a sand bar looks like though...

This guy is very happy for someone afraid a group of Sasquatch may be about to pounce. Apparently the soft sand and mud in the area he's pouring plaster is working out for him.


Good thing all those other tracks around the prints aren't messing up his casting process. He'd better be superfast to make those casts, capture his horses, get out of the forest, travel all the way to mail his package and THEN get back to sit down and go over his story with Al and the boys. Sort of impossible if you actually tried it.


On the left is one of those casts, but I've taken the liberty of adding toes from the guy who made the bear feet on the right. Same guys who made Patty made these feet too. They work the same way. Walk across the sand bar and you'll have a mid-tarsal break whether you want one or not.

Damn interdimensional rubber feet.


***Oh, and did you just mention Bob Titmus? He's the guy who thought a bunch of horse dung had to have been made by a Bigfoot until the horse walked up and crapped right in front of him. True story.
 
Last edited:
Hmmmm. I've barely made a hundred or so. If I only had multiple identities (like some folks do) maybe I could do better.:eye-poppi Unfortunately, posting all over the place won't help either of us to become experts.

I could help with your vision of what a sand bar looks like though...
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/7766477ddacb91cfb.gif[/qimg]
This guy is very happy for someone afraid a group of Sasquatch may be about to pounce. Apparently the soft sand and mud in the area he's pouring plaster is working out for him.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/7766477ddb3517225.gif[/qimg]
Good thing all those other tracks around the prints aren't messing up his casting process. He'd better be superfast to make those casts, capture his horses, get out of the forest, travel all the way to mail his package and THEN get back to sit down and go over his story with Al and the boys. Sort of impossible if you actually tried it.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/7766477ddbf013360.gif[/qimg]
On the left is one of those casts, but I've taken the liberty of adding toes from the guy who made the bear feet on the right. Same guys who made Patty made these feet too. They work the same way. Walk across the sand bar and you'll have a mid-tarsal break whether you want one or not.

Damn interdimensional rubber feet.


***Oh, and did you just mention Bob Titmus? He's the guy who thought a bunch of horse dung had to have been made by a Bigfoot until the horse walked up and crapped right in front of him. True story.


reply: I don't send my time on many forums.

You assume lots of false things.

And why need Patterson be afraid of Bigfoot?

Or others of like ilk?

Bigfoot runs from men, and men with guns.

You are professionally snide. You know it.

BTW, Patterson was casting, and not making tracks.
 
Quote:
Why have you TWICE misrepresented what I've said?

Answer the question, LTC...if you have the backbone to do it.

The question is a leading question and therefore has no real answer.
I have never misrepresented anything sweaty said.

I stopped beating my wife yesterday, sweaty.

P.S. I have never posted at BFF or any other bigfoot oriented forum under any name.
 
Last edited:
Sweaty, What are you talking about: "Why have you TWICE misrepresented what I've said?" Did your reading comprehension go completely haywire?? Nobody Misrepresented what you said. And every time you are asked a question, or asked to explain something you come back with a question, like this: "Why does "Bigfoot", as an explanation, require anything "supernatural"?" Why do you not answer a question once in awhile instead of whining. You have no expertise in special effects but yet you constantly keep drawing lines on and arrows on pictures. A word of advice, you either backup what you are claiming with real evidence or concede, because all you are doing is making a fool of yourself.

.

I Am He
 
The JREF bigfooters, of course. In particular, Correa Neto, Kitakaze, LtC8k6, William Parcher, Diogenes. And Dfoot, too. Basically the guys who have some knowledge on bigfootery.

The shame would be to present ridiculous arguments to this guy.
I'm sure that you must have some questions for him. What is your screen name at BFF? You can ignore this request if you feel ashamed.
Its not the first time that lacking sound arguments and reliable evidence, a bigfoot proponent appeals to the "you are not brave enough to come to my neighbourhood" line. This can not masquerade the fact that so far not a single piece of reliable evidence supporting their claims was brought to light.

You should perhaps be aware that Dfoot and Diogenes are BFF members. Stay tuned, for there are some people there that are critics of PGF.

I'll lurk around and see if something interesting shows up. So far, nothing.

In the meanwhile, I'll say a couple of things.

1. There are FX experts who claim Patty could be -and actually was- a costume. Some of them worked back in the 60s. If Munns says it could not, well, its up to hims to propperly back his position. And its up for us to check his arguments and make a decision. This is the key point. His reasoning, his arguments- if they can resist evaluation, then they will be OK. His credentials alone are not enough. Appeals to authority are useless here. Its a pity its not like this everywhere else. The same is valid for everyone else- Meldrum included, in case you have not noticed.

2. For now, I'll stick to my opinion: There's nothing in Patty that could not be reproduced by vintage FX tech and since PGF is surrounded by a fishy smell, I take it as a fraud. I'll also side with Ciochon opinion on bigfeet and yetis- they are not real. By now, you probably realized who Ciochon is.
 
You can attribute truth to what you have personally experienced.

You, it would seem, have experienced nothing.

Ah, there is the rub, right there.

There are three kinds of truth, there is perceptual truth, there is rational truth and then there is the sticky 'objective' truth.

Perceptions are what they are, they are generated from the sensations by the brain. They are manufactured whole sale and often filled in for missing pieces. So the colors you see in the sunset are filled in for about 90% of the visual field, material is generated for the blind spot in the visual field. We sense a limited range of material and our brains manufacture the perceptions whole sale.

There is another form of perceptual truth that I am calling 'rational' truth, although I could call it cognitive associative truth. This is very pervasive and really weird when studied. The brain reconstructs memories, and guess what it is prone to error. People who undergo head trauma and other brain trauma have memories that there brains fill in. they will think they were on the way to the library when they got run over, when in fact they were going to the laundry. People will often have extreme beliefs not shared by others, commonly called 'delusions'. People will have associative patterns that they think are real "All Upper Blomboskians are lazy", "All Lower Blomboskians are intelligent. These kinds of truth abound and are pervasive to social and cultural reality.

Then there is the universe, we can describe and observe its behavior, we can try to make models of how it operates. We can then try to sort of the causal relationships of the universe's behavior. This is sometimes called objectivity.

The first two truths are very true subjective experiences, the validity they have in the world of causal relationships varies.
 
Drewbot - I just clicked over to the BFF and read a tiny bit of what he was saying. I too worked with Mike Westmore and I can assure you that he, as well as the majority of the creature fx community, understand that Patty is a indeed a suit.

Whether he's kidding or not remains to be seen. Very few people actually know who and what was involved in making Patty. I'll bet I could sit down with him for 15 minutes in person and show him a few things that would give him a few new insights.

It is a breath of fresh air to read though. I'm used to people in the Bigfoot world who haven't a clue about costumes at all. Maybe I'll pop back over there and have a conversation with him.

Everyone looks at a film with a different set of eyes. I recall that none of the Directors, Director of Photography, or Editors who watched the "Alien Autopsy" thought it was real. Yet Stan Winston wasn't sure. He was looking at it trying to see if this or that looked "realistic" or not. Meanwhile, he couldn't help but have disdain for "Patty" based on the various obvious problems he sees with it.

btw - The Alien Autopsy was made from a dummy of a pregnant woman by the guy who did the 'Max Headroom' make-up. Recently they made a partly fictional comedy about the behind the scenes story of the hoax. Perhaps one day a similar film will be made about Patterson's adventures.


Once I gather more of the actual Patty materials I'm sure Bill Munns will see what I'm talking about. I just hope the stuff still exists with the guy I'm going to be talking to. I do know for a fact that a couple of things from back then are still around.

John Humphries recreated his Alien body for the movie they made. We might have to do this with Patty sometime, but the problem is if we really duplicate what's physically on the film - instead of what the mind is filling in for the viewer - no one would buy it. Seeing Patty up close would never sell. It's not as realistic as wishful thinking makes it. HD would not do Patty justice. Using Patterson-style filming will only make people cry foul. (Observe the earlier complaint about my dv stills not being clear enough)

Fortunately the fx guy and the lead hoaxer isn't dead (although the hoaxer Gimlin-ishly maintains publicly that it's real). The alien autopsy hasn't been around very long, otherwise we might have had another Patty on our hands. Or at least another "Minnesota Iceman" event.

manofthesea - It's important to demonstrate cheesy suits in a forum dedicated (supposedly) to learning what's behind the making of a cheesy suit. People without your abilities might not be able to imagine what's being described. Pics help the most to do this. Of course, there's always the StopSilvia thread. No suit pics needed there. I personally demand more cheesy suits.

monstro - According to the ancient Indians - the only people outside of Ostman (who himself considered Sas hairy people and not apes) who have spent any long term close up contact with Bigfoot and lived to tell the tale, the Sas are a bunch of cannibal people living in hidden caves. The only ones who ever said they were gentle mountain gorillas are the people using their imaginations after reading books written mostly by people who admit they have never even seen one from a distance.

Patterson was supposedly frightened and called Gimlin back since he'd lost his own gun when the horses ran off. That's the story he told. He's not too frightened in Gimlin's film of him though. Maybe he knew they'd already teleported to another dimension?:confused:

Well... back to the garage cleaning... psychic Squatch vibration detector will be on at all times. Just in case.
 
Seeing Patty up close would never sell. It's not as realistic as wishful thinking makes it. HD would not do Patty justice. Using Patterson-style filming will only make people cry foul. (Observe the earlier complaint about my dv stills not being clear enough)

I think this is the gist of it. People assign more visual quality and detail to the PCF (patty costume film) than there in reality ever was. And when even on the cleaned, cropped, and what not version the detail are not there, they make them up.

Even if somebody had reproduced a 100% identical film, with a patty like costume, they would look at it, and pick at the detail for the "difference" with patty if definition is good enough, or cry foul if you make something as blurry.

There is no way to convince them or "win".
 
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