• 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.
Parcher do you have any evidence of the 'Fake' Bob Gimlin in an Indian Wig, that Those on the BFF are claiming Roger Patterson drug around after the film for interviews?

I had never heard of the imposter Bob Gimlin before that.

Also, do you have any evidence that Gimlin went around after the film in a wig doing publicity?

BFF Thread
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=22179&view=findpost&p=452883

Colubus is really trying to push that the Argosy Cover is not Gimlin, Can you think of a reason for that?
 
Last edited:
Does anyone have a link to the story about Patterson filming a movie in the early 60's and rejecting the costume because it looked too much like a gorilla? I've heard this, but I don't remember a source. I think Dfoot brought it up.
 
Crowlogic wrote...in a moment of high wisdom...:D...

But that thing (BBC subject) sucks pure and simple!
Click to expand...


HH2.jpg



Your 'powers of observation' are doin' mighty fine, Crowlogic! ;) Keep-up the good work!
 
SweatyYeti said:
Analysis of the details of Patty's body is definitely the best way to try to determine what Patty really is....but I was just saying that people's intense interest in the PG film is one indicator, or evidence, of Patty's 'realism'...because people know what real animals look like, without having to take actual measurements.
Click to expand...

Their "interest" is only an indicator on how people want to discuss the topic. You might as well take a poll, which is still going to revolve around an opinion.

Now you do bring up something that can be quantified and that is analysis of the details of patty's body. Maybe you can tell me how those indicate "patty" is more real than the other known hoax/replication images?
 
SweatyYeti said:
The combination of Patty's body contour, flexibility, and apparant muscle movement...along with her exceptionally long arms, with moving fingers.....all add-up to something I've never seen in a thickly-padded suit.
Click to expand...

You are, again, being subjective. A suit you have never seen? How many suits have you seen? "Apparent" muscle movement? How do you quantify that? Come on sweaty, you believe it is most likely a bigfoot but you don't give us a good reason to move towards your opinion. Give us an analysis we can sink our teeth into that can be evaluated and not just your opinion.

SweatyYeti said:
I have yet to see even a picture of a 'man-in-a-suit' that looks anywhere close to as real as Patty does...let alone a suit in motion.
Click to expand...


There is that "real" quantity again. More subjective opinion. Are you ever going to base anything on "careful analysis" of the evidence or are you always going to base it on, "I believe it looks real".
 
Crowlogic said:
But that thing sucks pure and simple!
Click to expand...

That is an opinion and I believe that opinion is partly based on the fact that it does not look like the subject in the PGF. Again, what are we basing the "realism" angle upon? Is it because it does not look like "patty" or is it because there are flaws in the suit? Who is to say if the subject in the BBC film isn't a real creature? Other than knowing it is a fake, we could never say by looking at the image. This is why I find the term "realistic" is just not good enough to evaluate the PGF. As somebody pointed out, we don't have a real bigfoot to compare it to and, therefore, don't know what a real bigfoot looks like.
 
Astro wrote:
As somebody pointed out, we don't have a real bigfoot to compare it to and, therefore, don't know what a real bigfoot looks like.
Click to expand...


We don't need a real Bigfoot to compare Patty to, because people know what "real animals" look like...and move like. They are made of flesh-and-blood, not foam.

In Dfoot's padded-leg movie...we see just how stiff a padded leg looks when it's in motion...

stiffpadding2.gif


All we're trying to determine is whether Patty looks, and moves, more like a real, live animal....or more like a well-padded suit on a Bobby H. :)


That is an opinion and I believe that opinion is partly based on the fact that it does not look like the subject in the PGF. Again, what are we basing the "realism" angle upon? Is it because it does not look like "patty" or is it because there are flaws in the suit?
Click to expand...


Astro...in my honest and humble opinion, I think that Crowlogic said the suit SUCKS simply because...well, it SUCKS...bigtime. :D
 
4.5 billion people on the globe could not care LESS that bigfoot exists, unless it is tasty prepared with the local legumes, spices & wheat/rice. At this point only a handful for believer and a handful of skeptic with too much time on their hand, care about bigfoot.
 
Aepervius wrote:
At this point only a handful for believer and a handful of skeptic with too much time on their hand, care about bigfoot.
Click to expand...


Speaking for myself...I care about any extremely close relative to us human beings....such as Gorillas, Chimps, and Bigfoot. :)
If Bigfoot does exist, anywhere in the world, it deserves to be found, and protected...IMO.


Apparantly, this beast cares more about it's very-distant relatives, than a lot of us humans do for our potentially closest living relative, Bigfoot...

http://www.telestereo.com/Archivos/video.html
 
SweatyYeti said:
We don't need a real Bigfoot to compare Patty to, because people know what "real animals" look like...and move like. They are made of flesh-and-blood, not foam.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...but what does a "real bigfoot" look like? Again, you use your own personal experience rather than something we can all agree upon. I don't think patty looks "real" but that is not good enough. I admit that. For some reason you are stuck on "it looks real therefore it can not be fake". Just like people who say it is a guy in a suit, that is not good enough. It is, in no way, a careful evaluation of the evidence being presented.

SweatyYeti said:
Astro...in my honest and humble opinion, I think that Crowlogic said the suit SUCKS simply because...well, it SUCKS...bigtime. :D
Click to expand...

Congratulations, you recognize it is only your opinion but I will again ask the question, what makes that image (other than knowing for sure it is fake) "suck bigtime"? Point out the flaws that make it appear "unrealistic".
 
SweatyYeti said:
4.5 billion people across the globe, that's who.
Click to expand...


Really? Have you counted them and interviewed all of them? The fact of the matter is if that image appeared as a creature in the wild and not a simluation of bigfoot for BBC, you might (or others might) think it really was an unknown creature. Therefore, I doubt the number of 4.5 billion people. Go ahead and do a head count. I will be waiting.
 
SweatyYeti said:
Apparantly, this beast cares more about it's very-distant relatives, than a lot of us humans do for our potentially closest living relative, Bigfoot...
Click to expand...

Potentially is the key word. You talk sometimes as if bigfoot exists as a fact. Unfortunately, you continue to use terms like "in my opinion", "more realistic", "potentially", "if bigfoot exists". All these terms have nothing to do with what you claimed to be doing. That being carefully evaluating and weighing the evidence. So far, what you keep giving me has no weight at all. Show me how you have evaluated the evidence and then we can arrive at some sort of conclusions about bigfoot. Otherwise, you are speaking from a "I believe because I want to" standpoint. Not very scientific at all in my opinion.
 
Just thought I'd check in for the year...so...'nother year, more claims, sillier and sillier excuses, sex scandals, lies, and still no apemen...hmmmmm...
:cool:
Well, I'll check back in '09.
'til then, I'll keep my eyes open for errant hominids while out doing fieldwork, fishing, camping, etc. and of course draw red circles around any and all "intriguing," "interesting," and "compelling" blobs that appear after I jack up the resolution and screw with the hue/brightness/saturation settings in Photoshop.
Peace be wichew.
 
Last edited:
more pareidolia fun...

Hi DY! Long time no see! Wise are you for keeping away from this madness...

Talking about "realism"...
PattySuit.jpg

Patty is so "realistic" and PGF image quality image is so "good" that I can select several features which in my opinion, look like seam lines. Here are three possible locations of seams between the lower torso and the legs and two for the seams between the head and the shoulder. From red to yellow, are what I consider the most likely locations of the seams. Of course, this is arbitrary and qualitative. The numbers at the left are the frame numbers, images above are "raw data", presented without lines.

PGF defenders, of course, will find similar lines at images of real primates...

BTW, where are the seams of BBC's bigfoot costume? By this criteria, its more "realistic" than Patterson's bigfoot costume...
 
Seems this thing would have required measurments, fittings, adjustments and more than a few. I've long stopped believing that Patterson himself made the suit so Rorger and BoB H would have needed to travel to Holloywood a few times. Yet nothing is mentioned of this. Unless the suit maker made a few house calls to Roger, not!
 
I'm personally confident that Bigfoot is a myth. Bigfootery is a folk game involving a subculture of people who have voluntarily decided to join in and enter this social realm.

Good to see you desertyeti. Nothing new has happened to support the existence of Bigfoot. In the past year, we have learned some interesting things about the PGF and the many people related to supporting it. None of it reinforces the proposed authenticity of the film. As time passes, it becomes more apparent that the strong skeptical position is correct.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom