• 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.
One could then answer "see ! I told you she's got hair on the nipple to protect against the bitter cold ! Evolution at work !"

Evolution does work and there is something to say about genuinely real apes. They may have hairy breasts. This presents a problem for the nursing baby ape. A mouthful of hair is no good, and the hydraulic seal is all messed up when trying to suck milk. Another evolutionary adaptation fixes this problem. Long nipples.

lars.jpg


Godspeed to the Peyote Vision shamans to find these on Patty. Watch them do it in response to this.
 
Last edited:
Drew, I hope you are wiiling to settle for a still frame. It's the same thing that everyone already has.

Watch this video and pay close attention to the text about failed Patty recreations.

William Parcher said:
Concerted "Patty walk" recreation attempts that could have a dollar amount designated to them:

1) Erik Beckjord attempt using a man in a Bigfoot suit. This was filmed using the same type of 16mm camera used by Patterson. Cost: ?

2) National Geographic production showing Bob Heironimus walking in a suit made by Philip Morris. This is video. Cost: ?

3) Steindorf digitally-animated skeleton showing Patty walking. This is CGI. Cost: $75,000.

Are there others that would qualify for this list?

Is this just another falsehood spread by Pattycakes? The BBC Bigfoot is no more of a determined effort to replicate Patty than Jerry Romney was determined to confess to wearing the suit. Yes, lots of guys have confessed to wearing the Patty costume, and all of them are failures. Yes, lots of determined and big-bucks attempts to recreate Patty, and all of them are failures.

arms_comparison.jpg


Notice the State of Bigfootery.
 
I'd swear I saw a far away shot of the BBC recreation somewhere. Maybe Dfoot has it. It is a shot of the actual conditions/equipment recreation attempt.
 
Here for you, sgood is a video of the world's most northern-living non-human primate breastfeeding here in Japan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gHRp0uAjP0

What do you observe in comparison with the PGF subject?

Thunderdome, remember? You're not supposed to make unsubstantiated comments as fact, off the cuff.

This is just my personal opinion but I would say go ahead and discuss bigfoot's existence in this thread. Is that not what a very important part of discussing the PGF is about?

Let me get this straight- Bigfoots in North America and the Himalayas are OK and in Australia, Britain, Malaysia they are...?


I never attempted to substantial claims of Bigfoot in Australia, Britain, and Malaysia. There may be some there, there may not. Do I think there are actually are Bigfeet there though? No. Do I think there may perhaps be some other form of primate? It's possible, but I'm not going to discuss that. I am talking North America and simply made an aside to the land bridge.

WP:
Nor are you supposed to bait hungry creationists with talk of 'centuries of evolution'. There is some Creationist presence within Bigfootery.

Sorry if I insulted anyone with my beliefs.

Originally Posted by LTC8K6
Why doesn't foot just migrate back and forth with the seasons? Many other animals have figured this out. What good is this nifty bipedalism if you aren't going to travel?
If you travel, why stay where it's bitterly cold?
Aepervius:Not a good argument. On the same token you would ask why the polar bear/otter stays where it is bitterly cold (well... apparently before they soon drown....). One could then answer "see ! I told you she's got hair on the nipple to protect against the bitter cold ! Evolution at work !". Just saying....

Aepervius, very good point. I think anyone can see the obvious flaw in his logic.

Why stay in the bitterly cold? Because they have lived there forever, and they are well adapted to the weather, including hairy breasts.

LTC8K6:
A polar bear is not an intelligent bipedal primate capable of avoiding detection by humans at a nearly perfect rate.

Bigfoot is seen in all climates at all times of the year. The big hairy girl is apparently just as hairy in Miami as in Anchorage.

By this logic you're saying that polar bears stay out in the cold because they're not intelligent. Your arguments make no sense to me. Polar bears, as well as bigfoot are well adapted to their environment, whether it's freezing cold or not.

To address your 'Bigfoot is seen in all climates at all times of the year'...Sadly I think you indirectly answered your own question. I do actually believe that Bigfoot actually is migratory in some ways. Do I think they're going cross-country down to Florida? No. I believe there are some isolated pockets with the majority being in remote areas of Canada. I also believe that in Florida for instance the Bigfoot sightings are more of the "Skunk Ape" variety. I have no problem believing that other primates may have adapted differently down there.
 
sgoodman72
Why do you believe that ?

Because that's how the first human migrants came to North America as well, they followed the herds and the food, much of which they'd eventually drive into extinction. Why is it hard to believe that a primate creature couldn't have come over too, but it just hasn't been driven to extinction yet like humans do to everything else?
 
Polar bears, as well as bigfoot are well adapted to their environment, whether it's freezing cold or not.

How do you know bigfoot's environment and that they are well adapted to said environment?

Don't you have to find a few of them first and do a study?

Maybe they aren't well adapted at all? Maybe they don't live in the PNW, but only pass through during migrations to and from places that they are well adapted to?

My crack about polar bears not being intelligent was a shot at bigfootery, of course.

Foot is supposed to be intelligent. He's been watching us humans for a long time, supposedly.

So why doesn't he migrate south when the snow flies?

So why doesn't he wear shoes? :D
 
So the statement from John Green about the film not being tampered with now sticks out like a sore thumb. The film was tampered with (edited and flipped scenes) and it seems that Green should have seen that. Either his examination was very shoddy, or he didn't really examine it critically at all. We see this kind of pseudoanalysis thing so much with PGF believers that it has become something to expect.

What's the next bombshell surprise?
 
You are right about Bob H's horse Mr Parcher, wish all my bigfoot stuff was not packed up. :confused:
 
Last edited:
So the statement from John Green about the film not being tampered with now sticks out like a sore thumb. The film was tampered with (edited and flipped scenes) and it seems that Green should have seen that. Either his examination was very shoddy, or he didn't really examine it critically at all. We see this kind of pseudoanalysis thing so much with PGF believers that it has become something to expect.

What's the next bombshell surprise?
Are you referring to the frames Dfoot posted over at BFF ?

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=21482&view=findpost&p=439509

Others here may not know what you are referring to ..

Rational people, never had any reason to believe it wasn't edited .. A 100 foot roll of film that has 75 feet missing, has been edited ..
 
I didn't know the flipped riding scenes could be traced to Green's copy .. We see them in Mysterious Monsters and other versions.. Also, if Green has the riding scenes, he has more than just the 25 feet of Patty footage ...

However, if the flipped Patty scenes are on Green's copy, then he is obviously withholding information, as is Noll, Caddy and others, who have claimed to have had access to it ..

That's a pretty big can of worms if you ask me ..

I may just have to start a new thread over at BFF if they try to sweep this under the rug..
 
Sgood, I was hoping you'd comment on the youtube video I posted. Also, are you now saying that over centuries of evolution apes are becoming less hirsute is a belief and not an opinion?
I never attempted to substantial claims of Bigfoot in Australia, Britain, and Malaysia.
You've attempted to substantiate claims of bigfoot in North America and the Himalayas? How so?

There may be some there, there may not. Do I think there are actually are Bigfeet there though? No.
Oh dear. Yeah, that's gonna be a problem. Why don't you like reports from Britain, Australia, and Malaysia? Less truthy? Is a talking bigfoot report from BC better than a chest beating, rock throwing, panting, hooting report from Australia?

Why stay in the bitterly cold? Because they have lived there forever, and they are well adapted to the weather, including hairy breasts.
Uh oh, another problem. What about all these reports of contact in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevad, Louisiana, Georgia...? Speaking of hairy breasts, how many reports do you know of mentioning them? What kind of portion do they make up for reports as a whole?

To address your 'Bigfoot is seen in all climates at all times of the year'...Sadly I think you indirectly answered your own question. I do actually believe that Bigfoot actually is migratory in some ways. Do I think they're going cross-country down to Florida? No. I believe there are some isolated pockets with the majority being in remote areas of Canada. I also believe that in Florida for instance the Bigfoot sightings are more of the "Skunk Ape" variety. I have no problem believing that other primates may have adapted differently down there.
Well, we're starting to see a pattern, here. Why do you think the majority of bigfoots are in remote pockets of Canada? Is that where the majority of reports are coming from? What's wrong with Florida? There was a land bridge! What about all those reports? What about creekfreak? How do you know that bigfoots have specifically adapted to cold climates?
 
Last edited:
Since we're discussing Native American beliefs...

Some rather amusing posts in another thread resulting in me digging up this site. While reading some articles I had missed in the past, I was amused to find that some of the "human tracks" shown here resembled Freeman's "wrinkle foot" casts. Reading further, I noticed this quote:

"He [Bushnell] states that every one of them is unquestionably a carving made by the Indians. As they are always found near water, he suggests that the human foot was a symbol which some ancient Indian people associated with a watering place."

This reminded me of a proponent's claim that Native American beliefs held that Sasquatches could often be found near water. Then it hit me...what if this belief (assuming it's real) came about because of finding those carvings by watering places? But what could've inspired them to make such carvings if not Bigfoot (which is off limits since this little thought experiment is operating from the idea that the carvings spawned Bigfoot)? As a way of making a permanent marker that certain waterways were safe to cross? As a reference to humanlike overlaid animal tracks (especially those of bears)? There's also another possibility. You see, one of the tracks on the page with the "wrinkle foot" style carvings reminded me of elongate dinosaur tracks. As noted here and here, such tracks can be mistaken for humanoid footprints under the right conditions. These elongate tracks were found at/near a river bed. Interested parties should also look here.

Perhaps early Native American tribes found similar fossilized tracks near bodies of water and learned to associate large, humanoid prints with sources of water (It's also possible that they learned to associate humanoid tracks with watering areas and the carvings gradually got larger and larger as years went by and memories of the proper size faded). Thanks to interaction between tribes, the tradition would spread. This would create carvings of large footprints, which would be found by other tribes in the future, who would create stories to explain the giant tracks. This could also inspire tribe members with a prankster streak to make their own tracks using fake wooden feet (not that getting the idea to make giant human footprints is very hard, mind you).

Do I believe this is definitely the way it actually happened? No, I just think it's a possibility and that it's a pretty interesting idea.

I also find it interesting that this "three-toed Bigfoot track" vaguely resembles the carved track that inspired me to look up more information about elongate tracks and how it shares some similarities to the dinosaur tracks pictured here and here. It could just be a coincidence, but it's still interesting to me.

Also, it'd be interesting to see what we could learn about Bigfoot track hoaxes by looking at hoaxes made and/or touted by creationists/ I wonder what Dr. Meldrum would say about tracks like these?
 
Quite possibly this is the most fascinating aspect- the mythical focus, at least for me.

Some alternatives for the "roots" of sasquatch myths not involving North American apes unknown to science:
-The results of desires and fears of crossing the barriers that separate men from beasts (no "real" animal required);
-A "dehumanization" process of a rival tribe (possibly earlier settlers), regardless on how tall and hairy thet were in comparission with the storytellers;
- Myths of hairy wildmen started by orang-utangs (or Homo erectus or even Meganthropus -if they existed- or a hipothetical remanant Gigantopithecus population) brought from Asia with the ancestors of current Native American tribes;
-Fossil remains (footprints and bones from megafauna animals);
-A person (or a group of persons) with hypertrichosis;
-Any combination of the above.

Here are the speculations above explained wih a bit more depth:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2705452&postcount=4685
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1454693&postcount=2554
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2392135&postcount=2844

A last observation (a cut-n'-paste job, actually):
If I interpret these myths as evidence for cryptohominids, I am seeing the myths under my biased googles, cherry picking the details that I feel "fit" with my interpretation. Note that when I present them to back a point against their use to back cryptohominids, I am also making an interpretation under my biased googles and cherry-picking details... Welcome to the slippery but fascinating world of myth interpretation!
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2390525&postcount=2819
Myths are mirrors, mirrors that qite often show what we want to see, instead an objective unbiased reality.

At las but not least, AMM, the footprints you linked to and its likes seem to be the "evidence" used by historian to "prove" bigfeet walked among dinosaurs... Hoaxes and frauds, as if bigfootery needs some more of these...
 
Sgood, I was hoping you'd comment on the youtube video I posted. Also, are you now saying that over centuries of evolution apes are becoming less hirsute is a belief and not an opinion?You've attempted to substantiate claims of bigfoot in North America and the Himalayas? How so?

Haven't had a chance, will respond to this when I have a chance to watch the video.

Oh dear. Yeah, that's gonna be a problem. Why don't you like reports from Britain, Australia, and Malaysia? Less truthy? Is a talking bigfoot report from BC better than a chest beating, rock throwing, panting, hooting report from Australia?

Thank you for taking only the first section of my response, and completely ignoring how I finished my thought, to completely and totally distort what I was saying. That's how people on this forum win arguments I suppose? Classy.

Perhaps you only need a reminder though. What I said was I don't think Bigfoot (as we know him - and using that specific terminology) is in Britain, Australia, and Malaysia; I did however say that I believe there could be an unknown primate of some sort (call him Bigfoot if you'd like) in those countries. Thanks again for kindly ignoring that portion.

Uh oh, another problem. What about all these reports of contact in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevad, Louisiana, Georgia...? Speaking of hairy breasts, how many reports do you know of mentioning them? What kind of portion do they make up for reports as a whole?

Having now established that the first problem was merely your own inaptitude for reading comprehension, I stated that Bigfoot is migratory. Assuming an animal has lived in a freezing environment for millennia (North-Eastern Asia), came over the land-bridge, continued living in cold conditions in Northern U.S. and Canada, and eventually some migrated further south, any rational thinker would reason that they would still have hairy breasts.

Again Bigfoot is migratory. 'Speaking of hairy breasts', I do not know how many reports from down South mention them (either way), so you cannot make a claim one way or another. I am justifying the hairy breasts of Patty, not a separate reference. To be fair, neither you nor I have seen clear pictures of the breasts from a female Bigfoot down South, so your argument is unsound.

Well, we're starting to see a pattern, here. Why do you think the majority of bigfoots are in remote pockets of Canada? Is that where the majority of reports are coming from? What's wrong with Florida? There was a land bridge! What about all those reports? What about creekfreak? How do you know that bigfoots have specifically adapted to cold climates?

You're right, we are starting to see a pattern here. Namely, your inability to see past your own beliefs, and to grasp and critically think through someone else's ideas.

I think the majority of Bigfoot are in remote pockets of Canada because that is where they have lived since crossing over. No, that's not where the majority of Bigfoot reports are coming from, and maybe you just led into a good point. If there were more contact with those remote areas, then perhaps we'd see and read about more Bigfoot sightings. But then again, that would make the place not-so-remote wouldn't it?

"What's wrong with Florida?" - Nothing is wrong with Florida, relevance? I already discussed migration and the potential for different varieties of unknown primates (you can call all unknown primates Bigfoot if you'd like - including those in Malaysia, Australia, etc). Again you're getting into a terminology issue where I think our minds diverge. When you say Bigfoot you mean all unknown primates world-wide. When I say Bigfoot I don't mean that.

"There was a land-bridge!" - Yes there was, previously discussed.

"What about all those reports?" - What about them?

"What about creekfreak?" - What about it?

"How do you know that bigfoots have specifically adapted to cold climates?" - I don't know 100%, nor do you, but if you're asking why i BELIEVE this, then please refer back to where I discussed them living in the cold, mountanous North-Eastern Asia for thousands of years and migrating over just like the humans and other animals did.
 
Last edited:
Are you referring to the frames Dfoot posted over at BFF ?

Wow, upon reading the ostrich-like reactions to that post, I nearly broke my vow to never bother posting at the BFF. It's astonishing how close-minded the Pattyphiles are about the blatant and obvious signs of a hoax.

It would be easier to take if the BFF was uniformly this gullible. They're not. In fact, they rip apart every new claim with a refreshing gusto. But the PGF? Hands off.

It's just so sad.

Avindair
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom