• 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.
manofthesea said:
Wrong, dear old fool.

That was basic robotics. Animatronics was first used with the dinorsaur exhibit that toured the US museums in the 80's and 90's.
Click to expand...
Wrong yourself. I don't need Wikipedia. I went to the Illinois Pavilion at the New York World's fair in 1965 and saw the "animatronic" Lincoln in action.

It may not have been what we would call very good by today's standards, but it was called animatronics, and it was out there.
 
bruto said:
Wrong yourself. I don't need Wikipedia. I went to the Illinois Pavilion at the New York World's fair in 1965 and saw the "animatronic" Lincoln in action.

It may not have been what we would call very good by today's standards, but it was called animatronics, and it was out there.
Click to expand...

The Lincoln display was good. Nice presentation. I saw it at about age 6 at Disneyland. The audio really made the show. The length of the show allowed for examination of the Lincoln display, which lost it's shine shortly. But still, memorable.

Though, being from Seattle and familiar with Sequim and it's live animals that were used in many films, I always found it hard to watch robotic animals.
 
Last edited:
Dfoot said:
Drewbot -
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.
Click to expand...

Actually, I personally know a person in my home town, as does the NSA, who regularly spends hours in face to face contact in our dimension with the Bigfoot people. That person's description of them, is exactly like my description of them. Which is: polite, considerate, benevolent, mature, intelligent, curious, friendly inter-dimensional people. So, Dfoot stands corrected whether he is willing to admit it or not.
 
Atomic - There is a very good reason that JANOS claimed he didn't know where they could find a man big enough to fit that suit when he worked with guys the proposed height of Patty everyday. I'll bet you can guess the reason.;)

If you look at the outlined "patchwork" on Patty's upper arm here you can see the familiar work that could also be found on a certain someone's creature suits. Also, the same kneecap seen on Patty was used by this certain someone the entire time he worked with Wah and Chambers.

The attachment of the wrist that can be clearly seen matches the same lines used by this man on his bear suits. Bet you can guess why he was picked for the 1971 documentary of Olson/Patterson that later was edited together with the Robert Morgan adventure to become, "Bigfoot: Man or Beast". Not that Olson knew anything.... but the guy who recorded that approximation of a Bigfoot yell sure did. You know? Patterson's bucket cry that is now called the "Washington State recording of a Bigfoot". Seriously.

Good choice picking Janos as the expert there. It's like asking Clifford Irving Howard Hughes questions. He's sure to have a good answer no doubt.

Also note the upside down shoulder muscle. Classic.:D

mangler - I hereby refer to you as a JREF Bigfooter. Exhibit your expertise at will.

manofthesea - I love Hawaii because you can be safe from the Sasquatch there - so I'm told. Although I've had a problem with things being stolen from the trunks of cars, that could happen on the mainland too. Of course, that could be Bigfoot related. I have no evidence that it's not.

Correa - There's plenty of info that's wrong on Wiki too. I only pray that there's nothing there about Dfoot being Dennett.

Since I've always said exactly who I was and what I did, being referred to as someone else immediately after mentioning this fact was pretty weird. But isn't that the way it usually goes with this stuff? Facts never seem to get in the way of stories. You have to appreciate it sometimes I suppose. It's amazing what people can convince themselves of.

Now I'm going to trot over to the BFF as I promised someone earlier today I would and post to Bill Munns some info. Hopefully I might save him from becoming the Krantz/Meldrum of the make-up community. Although he could sell some books and do some lecture tours about the impossible gait or something.

That would be something alright.
 
Hey, I've had coffee at Starbucks, but I've never had delicious chicken gumbo at Tubes house.


m :w2:
 
Mr. Munns has presented a detailed analysis on the difficulties of making a suit or costume comparable to Patty. It appears possible, but highly difficult.

I've generally discounted or ignored the PGF until now. My interest is sparked. Now, for me, the problem is this. I've seen the photo comparisons here and saw the photos of the Jacob's bear thing, and the Myakka creature also. I suspect that some of the photos may have been doctored, whether to support or debunk each claim. I suspect with all of the debate and arguing about Patty, that some of the stills of it/her may have been doctored.

I saw a special with Rick Noll involved and they were studying individual frames, if these were available and analyzed that would seriously further this debate. Particularly the frames showing the suspected flat foot, the diaper butt, and the head and face.
The flat foot could be explained by accumulated sand or debris while walking. Or it could be a doctored feature that was added.
Same with the diaper butt, was it doctored or is that a real anomaly?
 
manofthesea said:
Wrong, dear old fool.

That was basic robotics. Animatronics was first used with the dinorsaur exhibit that toured the US museums in the 80's and 90's.
Click to expand...


Sorry, Disney called it 'audio aninmatronic' very early on. If you saw the show at FutureWorld (basically an ad for GE) they kind of shoved down your throat, as they did at the Hall of Abraham Lincoln. I was there in 62,63,66.
 
manofthesea said:
This is a bunch of bunk. Wikipedia is for children. Show me the patent that says animatronics 1967.
Click to expand...


Wow, interesting.

So the common use of a word has no meaning because you deifne it so narrowly. The fact that Disney used it in all forums and advertised it incessantly has no meaning.

Too bad, you seemed to be someone who would talk rather than just taunt.
 
manofthesea said:
Forgetting the obvious gigantism displayed in North American mammals.
Just look at Europeans after only 4-500 years. Their girth has almost doubled.
Click to expand...

Wow are you really saying that or just insulting someone?

There is no obvious giganticism in North American mammals. Please do tell, did homo spaiens sapiens cause the extinction of the large megafauna of north america, like the camel?
 
manofthesea said:
The Lincoln display was good. Nice presentation. I saw it at about age 6 at Disneyland. The audio really made the show. The length of the show allowed for examination of the Lincoln display, which lost it's shine shortly. But still, memorable.

Though, being from Seattle and familiar with Sequim and it's live animals that were used in many films, I always found it hard to watch robotic animals.
Click to expand...

Oh so you don't like the Bear Country Musical Travesty?

How about the Tiki Hut?

;)
 
Dfoot said:
...snip...Correa - There's plenty of info that's wrong on Wiki too. I only pray that there's nothing there about Dfoot being Dennett.
...snip...
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm pretty aware of that. I think Wiki is usually OK when it comes to trivia, however. As a guideline, I just post a refference for it after checking how good the entry is - even if is FX trivia. In this case, it's OK has links that may help some further research, if the reader is interested.

Some stuff there stink badly than a bigfoot...
 
Oh, Munns' ideas.

So far, he exposed arguments on why he thinks its unlikely that the patterns seen on Patty's hair or fur could have been made by Patterson and eventual colaborators. There are some weak points on his assesment. One of them is the standard analysis flaw many PGF defenders make. As in Meldrum's paper, I'll hold further comments untill I get a better view of the whole picture.

Dfoot's post, btw, generated the sort of emotional and without counter arguments answer that we are used (and expect) to see. Can't counter rhe arguments? Been caught with your pants down? Appeal to ad homs. If you are surrounded by an audience which shares your POVs, you might eventualy have the illusion you are doing well...
 
Correa Neto said:
Oh, Munns' ideas.

So far, he exposed arguments on why he thinks its unlikely that the patterns seen on Patty's hair or fur could have been made by Patterson and eventual colaborators. There are some weak points on his assesment. One of them is the standard analysis flaw many PGF defenders make. As in Meldrum's paper, I'll hold further comments untill I get a better view of the whole picture.

Dfoot's post, btw, generated the sort of emotional and without counter arguments answer that we are used (and expect) to see. Can't counter rhe arguments? Been caught with your pants down? Appeal to ad homs. If you are surrounded by an audience which shares your POVs, you might eventualy have the illusion you are doing well...
Click to expand...

Translation:
Correa is a gold miner in Brazil, and I am the POPE!
How could Correa get all the latest Bigfoot publications and also simultaneously be mining gold in the Brazilian outback? He can't!
Correa and Dfoot receive paychecks from the exact same U.S. Government entity.
Correa is not capable of critiquing a fellow employee
Correa and Dfoot, both drain coffee out of the same pot in the same government sweat shop.
 
tube said:
I'm fairly confident that I'm the only poster on this board that knows Mike Dennett personally. I've had coffee at Starbucks with Mike Dennett, I've talked on the phone with Mike Dennett, and I've had lots of e-mail exchanges with Mike Dennett. Heck, I've even had Mike Dennett over for dinner, delicious chicken gumbo, in fact. The great highlight of that evening was watching a number of local and national TV spots on Bigfoot that he had recorded over the years, including the famous interview where Paul Freeman admits to having hoaxed Bigfoot tracks. I was at the MonsterQuest video shoot in Seattle with Mike Dennett.
Mike Dennett wrote the article and took the accompanying photographs found here:

http://csicop.org/sb/2006-09/bigfoot.html

I e-mailed Mike and advised him of Historian's claim. Not surprisingly, Mike confirmed what I already suspected, that he's never posted under anything but his own name.

For mentally healthy, thinking people, making an error of the magnitude that Historian has would be mortifying.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, Michael Dennett only got more exposure out of it as he was quoted directly. Kind of like giving a second wind to an article that had long ago dissolved into the ethernet. Tube, why don't you tell us who Dfoot is and whether you cash paychecks from the same entity?
 
Last edited:
Dfoot appears to have originally been hired on with the NSA in late January of 2006. He began posting on BFF at the same time and for the same purpose. They kicked him off over there, for posting libelous comments against Bob Gimlin. They let him back on after a while. He boasted over there that he was making a real cheap Patterson-Gimlin suit, just to show that Patterson could both do it and afford it. Over here, that suit cost is up to $60,000, which tends to prove that Patterson neither made it nor filmed a Bigfoot suit for the P-G film. Nobody puts $60,000 into a phoney bigfoot suit, unless they are being funded by the U.S. Government.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

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