• 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.
http://orgoneresearch.com/roger_patterson.htm

No cockeyed little toe in the casts Roger is holding.

I don't disagree that they look different. But it could be a matter of how the cast copy turned out and the amount of trimming/touch-up done. There is also the possibility that slight differences in camera/cast angle give that toe a strange look (when compared to other images).

The other possibility is that this really is another cast of Patty's left foot that is not accounted for as such. We've read that Titmus saw more plaster residue within tracks (at Bluff Creek) than are represented by Patterson plaster casts. IOW, there could be 'missing' casts that aren't acually missing (this is one?). Something like that should have been ironed out decades ago within Bigfootery.

Given what I have seen of the past "detailed research" on the Patterson encounter... almost nothing would surprise me now.
 
kitakaze -- I liked all of Rick Baker's suits. With the earlier ones it would always depend so much on how it was lit and edited. But imagine one of those werewolf suits walking in the distance as a guy with a shaking and out-of-focus camera bounced up and down. No one would (or could) notice any flaw or stiffness to the face. And IF you were already predisposed to believing that real werewolves did indeed stalk that area, you might just swear you'd filmed a real werewolf.

However, upon close up examination of the suit you'd find it wasn't real at all. Too bad we can't do that with Patty.

Crowlogic -- Actually the red ape didn't have anything to do with the BBC. A guy gets a budget to work within and comes to America to do his documentary based on his ideas. He talks to OPTIC NERVE about suits and interviews JOHN VULICH. Optic Nerve gives him a red ape suit to use that's hanging up in the shop.

The idea is to show a simple hair suit walking that's a totally different color and doesn't even have feet that match. Reveal to the audience what IT REALLY LOOKS LIKE and then show it FROM PATTERSON'S CAMERA POV. The audience is supposed to see that even this suit looks halfway decent when filmed the way Patterson shot his suit.

That was the idea anyway. Unfortunately this producer had no clue about how the Bigfoot community would later grab stills of the red suit when he was deliberately showing what it looked like INSTEAD of using the images from the Patterson POV camera. He gave the Bigfoot world waaayyy too much credit for insight. The main skill of Bigfoot investigators is finding ways to deny the obvious.

For example: The hair of the "Mr. Spock" headed Orang really is similar to the hair used on that "David Cassidy" headed red ape. Yet we know only one is real and the other is fake.

It's not "sheen" we're talking about on Patty. There's more to it than that. Patty does have both the shine of fake acrylic fur and other attributes that combined show this is exactly what it is. The CIRCLE around the upper thigh that causes the "pair of shorts" look is due to fake fur and skin being stretched tightly over the top of the thigh pad edge.

Other goofiness is seen as well. The enhancements of Patty reveal the areas that match acrylic based fake fur and not real hair. When you stretch this stuff tightly over padding you get those lines around the edges of the pads that can be seen in the film. You see it on the butt pads too.

There is no doubt that Stan Winston was right about this. I know it's hard to imagine that he'd know something about suits that a Bigfoot hunter staring at decades old impressions in the mud doesn't, but it's true.


Here's part of a flyer Janos Prohaska used to hand out. You can see some of his suits from the 50's and early 60's have a certain type of sheen to them that comes from faux fur.


Here you can see a circle around the top of my thigh. That's where the pad I'm wearing ends. Something similar happens with Patty. It never happens to any human or ape leg, however, only with suits.


I've already shown you how a circular butt pad fits over hip pads that wrap around the hips. If you look closely at this enhanced pic you can see the edges of the butt and hip pad configuration that is common on two section ape suits. When the hair fabric is glued and stitched tightly to the area the shine makes the edges stand out. This is what is going on here.

In fact, Bob Heironimus' own buttocks start to curve from just beneath the butt pad in this shot. At the top of the thigh pad line you may notice that his real buttocks begin. Patty's butt pad is connected to the upper "shirt" type section of the suit. Think of it like a backpack or fanny pack.

Patty's top section is nearly too short for Bob. In the ape suit world the butt section should hang lower on him and that coupled with his own squatting would make the legs look shorter.


On the RIGHT is a wetsuit that was used on VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA. When they were done using it underwater on that show they let it dry out and then took it to the stage next door for an appearance on LOST IN SPACE. The only change was a paint job. The hair suit in the other cage is padded as well as covered in a "mink coat" type of fake fur. They would mix and match various suits to make whatever goofy creature the show needed that week. That is the "cannibalizing" John Vulich was talking about.


In truth, the type of hair used on Patty is no different from the black acrylic hair used on this suit. It's just the manner in which it is applied, what it is glued to, and the padding that makes the difference.


I made the breast on the RIGHT in a few minutes. Cover your soft foam padding and (either wetsuit or fabric-covered body suit) with latex. Add your shiny faux fur in patches in various cuts as needed. This creates a Patty type suit.

Isn't it possible that since we know from real life experience that the things seen on Patty are created by this kind of suit-making AND we know that the "mid-tarsal break" seen in Patty's tracks IS created by a person wearing over-sized rubber feet walking in the sand, then can't we stop for a second and consider the possibility that con man Patterson and his pals really did make a fake Bigfoot film?

I know that if I were a Bigfoot hunter and I saw one in clear daylight in a "hotspot" like Bluff Creek then I'd certainly be hunting in that area. But not Roger. He left and never hunted there again. Very odd.
 
Crowlogic said:
OMG you mean you''ve never seen the dinosours among us. Its more than just a small community too. Furthermore your don't have to consign them to to being just herbivores either. They exist in both varieties vegan and blood thirsty. If you need to see one just look over to my avitar there's a shot of my cousin Winston winging his way home. But even as a device to downgrade the Sasquatach issue bringing up the T-Rex survivor is about as lame as it gets.
Excuse me, but trying to support bigfoot with fossils of apes who lived very far from North America (and whose reconstructions do not look like several bigfoot renderings), highly biased myth interpretations and films (highly) suspected of being frauds is as lame as it gets...

But, of course, its just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Nice Try Kitikaze...
But I'll just answer that in Footer-galese for you.
It is common knowledge that Bigfoot travel in groups and carry off their dead or wounded. That is why we don't find bones, and why shooting one is much too dangerous for the shooter. The reprisals would be catastrophic. An Angry Bigfoot is one thing, but angry Bigfoot Clan is a whole 'nuther level of badass.
Ho ho! I'm ready for that Footer-galese or Footsy or whatever you wanna call it.

1) Traveling in groups? Hmmm... A traveling group of 8ft giant bipedal hairy primates. Sounds pretty noticeable. Sounds like they'd be pretty social and stop and pick the bugs off eachother and chatter and make a racket like every other primate that does that.

2) Carry of your dead? Sounds like team work. Sounds like war! Humans love war. Bang bang.

Scenario:

Bigfoot Clan Ook. The wilds of Idaho. 1902.

Clan Ook youngling Blaaar has been in the fermented rasberries again. Although he has been taught to fear the saggy skins, the lust for goat liver is hot on him. In a blood rage, the full moon shining on his short, blotchy fur, he annihilates a path through the forest towards the nearest saggy skin wood cave. The goats in their pen stand no chance. Blaaar lifts the small ungulate to the moon and tears it in two in a sticky red explosion. While wearing the rear quarters of the goat like a hat and glaring at his precious big, bloody, steaming multivitamin, making that throaty simian gurgling noise that may be chuckling, he fails to notice the numerous clicking sounds of rifles being cocked behind him. Blaaar dies with a ridiculous smile on his face. In the night's following conflict Clan Ook takes three saggy skin heads but loses five members to there cursed boom sticks. And thus began the bigfoot wars...

Happily, today dependence on illegal migrant labour has been all but erradicated by our use of pharmaceutically managed sasquatches, genetically engineered for 97% less rotten egg/raw sewage smell.

Prfshnak! Beer! Now!
 
OMG you mean you''ve never seen the dinosours among us. Its more than just a small community too. Furthermore your don't have to consign them to to being just herbivores either. They exist in both varieties vegan and blood thirsty. If you need to see one just look over to my avitar there's a shot of my cousin Winston winging his way home. But even as a device to downgrade the Sasquatach issue bringing up the T-Rex survivor is about as lame as it gets.
Mokele-mbembe?
 
The theory goes, that Patty was trying to lead Patterson and Gimlin away from her youngster. But when Roger Calls Gimlin back to keep watch over him, wouldn't the beast then turn around and start Destroying the intruders? Obviously her Plover-broken-wing tactic didn't work, what is the next step, "PATTY-CRUSH"?

But no, she continues her slow plodding course, knowing that they aren't buying the broken wing antics. Why doesn't she stop and kill?
 
But even as a device to downgrade the Sasquatach issue bringing up the T-Rex survivor is about as lame as it gets.

Using the concept of plausibility, as described, anything can be consider plausible before investigating. That is the concept that was original put forth. Using the fact that there is a vast wilderness to consider if one wants to consider bigfoot plausible is just as lame a tool as suggesting T-Rex (or anything else) exists there as well. The one thing T-Rex has going for it is there were T-Rex's in north america at one time. From what I have read, there is no record for Bigfoot's supposed ancestor (Giganto) being in north america at all.
 
William P - Yes. One of those guys is Tom Slick, but the one next to him is a man he is paying to track Bigfoot; Ivan Marx.

What? Ivan Marx is not shown in the group photo of the Pacific Northwest Expedition crew. Standing next to Tom Slick is Ed Patrick and Rene Dahinden. Your doggy shots show Slick and Marx.

Many years later after Patterson and DeAtley made so much money on their film tour, Marx was fortunate enough to follow up with the same kind of scheme. Finding tracks of and filming a crippled beast. He did get his film distributed and he and his wife Peggy made a nice bundle I'm sure.

Ivan Marx fascinates me. His film appears to be a satire and exploitation of Bigfootery. Why and how would he produce his own film (1971) about the legend including showing a Bigfoot, and at the same time never mention Roger Patterson (1967) in the film? He is the narrator of his own film and his demeanor and tone is what intrigues me. It sounds so phony and contrived that I'm compelled to think it may have been intentionally done that way. Or, that Marx recognized that Bigfooters are so gullible that you can feed them virtually anything regardless of how ridiculous it may be. I feel something subtle was going on with Marx and I think he knew full well that Bigfoot was fully mythical.

Sorry for the size of the Radford contract. I'll come back later on and post a larger version for you.

OK, but lots of your attached images are too small to be of much benefit to viewers. You are working with the JREF attachment software and its limitations/restrictions. Try something new. Myself and others use common web-hosting file sites like Photobucket. I can recommend that one. It's free, easy to use, and can host some big images and animated gifs, etc. When you put these images into their server, you can then link to them from JREF. No need for JREF host site attachments after that. You can easily do big stuff with large file sizes. No more downsizing to fit JREF protocols. Photobucket.com. Go for it.


Here's what it says though: It's a legal contract signed on May 26, 1967 in which the Radford's agree to loan Patterson $700 (worth roughly $4000 in those days) and get back $850 by June 10 of '67. Patterson agrees to pay them a percentage of a film project he has in the works. It's witnessed and signed by other people, one being a Notary. Other documents are basically attempts by the Radford's and others to collect from Patterson who refuses to pay them a dime.

Was $700 going to be enough to cover this costume including (you theorize) the mechanical mouth. Pay one guy in Hollywood for this, right? Do you tell him that $700 is your budget (max), and to not exceed that amount? Back to the cost... Morris was selling one of his simplistic gorilla suit for just under $500. It had no mechanical devices. Yet, these guys in Hollywood would do a fully custom Bigfoot costume with padding and moving mouth for only around $700? Is that reasonable?

After this Patterson and Merritt drove to Hollywood (as he did many times) and tried to get Nudie Cohn (a well known western outfitter of Hollywood cowboy stars and country music legends) to invest. That didn't happen, but something must have.

Ok, thanks. Patterson probably never flew to LA. You were supposed to ask why I was so persistent with this question (fly or drive?). I was wondering if Patterson could have bought a Morris gorilla suit and then drove it down to LA to have it customized in Hollywood. He could still ship it (especially if he flew), but bringing it in his own vehicle would make the most sense.

JACK OLIPHANT was a well known publicist. He was the one hired by Patterson and Merritt's manager PAT MASON to set up book signings and publicity events. Oliphant is interviewed by GREG LONG for his book. Merritt also mentions the New York party Oliphant arranged to try to interest potential investors. No one was buying it.

You again skipped answering my question directly. I'm asking about Oliphant being in the presense of Gimlin while he is wearing the wig. You see, this persistent questioning from me all come from a statement by you on March 20th:

Dfoot said:
But when he (Al DeAtley) is asked about how he developed that precious film, what happened to the original, and about the FACT that he is standing right next to Gimlin with publicist JACK OLIPHANT in New York while Gimlin is wearing the wig and Indian clothes... he says his "memory banks are flooded on that".

According to that, we have Oliphant and DeAtley standing next to a wig-wearing Gimlin in NYC. It reads like a documented fact (from testimony), or a caption from a photograph. Or, you have assumed that Gimlin would have been wearing the wig (at that assembly of named people in NYC) and stated it as if it were a known and supportable fact.
 
Oh, Patty could tear Patterson and Gimlim in to shreds if the first shot failed to do the job...

A wild animal is walking away from two guys. It hears a loud BANG! Feeling or not feeling a hit, whats more likely?

a. Turn and attack the guys
b. Run away from the guys towards the woods
 
The theory goes, that Patty was trying to lead Patterson and Gimlin away from her youngster. But when Roger Calls Gimlin back to keep watch over him, wouldn't the beast then turn around and start Destroying the intruders? Obviously her Plover-broken-wing tactic didn't work, what is the next step, "PATTY-CRUSH"?

But no, she continues her slow plodding course, knowing that they aren't buying the broken wing antics. Why doesn't she stop and kill?

All of this "broken-wing-lure-you-away" stuff has got to stop. I've seen it on BFF before. Bigfoot (Patty) is quite obviously a formidable creature. Bigfoot (as proposed) is something very much like a bear in terms of its ecology. Both are opportunistic omnivores with great physical and behavioral capacities to exploit their local environment. When it comes to flesh-eating, both are apex predators which means that they eat animals but are not likely to be eaten themselves. This is directly correlated to how they defend their young as it is with other animals.

These kinds of animals do not use strategies to defend or protect their young that are like those used by birds such as plovers. These birds are regarded as prey to many different predator animals even as adults. The mother bird is just as tempting of a meal as are her nestlings or eggs. That matters in the functionality of the broken-wing strategy. The mother bird "offers" herself as a prey item in a game that only requires successfully luring the predator away from the offspring. A fox is coming directly at her brood and she needs to get it to divert its course away from them. Ideally she will play the fox like a fiddle and get it exhausted and frustrated as it tries to capture her on a pursuit course leading far away from her babies. By the time the fox gives up on her, it is no longer anywhere near her nest. Back to the peaceful routine of motherhood with no foxes in sight.

But sow bears (and other apex predators) don't do anything like this when defending their young. This is because they can beat the crap out of almost any threat to her cubs. She will instead use every ounce of her strength combined with teeth and claws to fight off any adversary. That measure may even come after exaggerated displays of her potential capability, intent and ferocity. It's almost laughable to propose that sow bears might possibly use the "broken-leg" tactic to lure people away from her cubs. Why would Bigfoot act any differently?

Instead, we would expect a huge Bigfoot mama (with baby nearby) to aggressively confront Patterson and Gimlin. Start by charging them with terrifying vocalizations. If the cowboys don't scatter - then rush the closest one and separate his head from the rest of his body. Baby will be safe.

I'm saying that this kind of argument should stop. That protective behavior appears in nature, but it is not associated with apex predators defending their young. These animals are equipped to deal with threats in different ways. Bigfoot mamas should be expected to use their physical body and intent to use it (display behavior) to rebuff any attempts to harm their babies.
 
Footer answer:

Oh, but bigfeet are an unknown species! How can you expect to know its behavior? :duck:

Bigfeet may be smart enough to know humans have weapons that may hurt them at distance! You know, evolutionary adaptation to be stealthy and elusive, avoiding us! :bricks:

Maybe she just didn't care about the puny humans, thats why she kept walking. :hit:

Or maybe she was afraid of being raped by the cowboys. You know how bad humans are. :cs:
 
Parchers sarcasm detector isn't working today.

My post was intended to show the silliness of the Broken wing theory. Broken Wing Theory is promoted by many footers, to explain why Patty didn't bolt at the first sign of the P and G comin'-'round the bend.

The nonsensical logic here is:
IF Patty was using broken wing to lure PandG away from baby
AND Patterson/Gimlin did not buy the Broken wing display
THEN Patty continues to walk slowly away and up the mountain


At the very least, she could have stopped just inside the woods and lobbed rocks, annoyingly close to P & G.

Note: I did not say "Lobbed rocks, at P&G", because bigfoot does not do that.
 
Last edited:
Drew, I've seen you engage the "wounded kildeer" argument on BFF before. You never explained to them why that doesn't make sense for an apex predator. I just broached that here.

Maybe I did not detect that you mentioned this out of sarcasm. But I never did see you explain to anyone why this behavior would be unusual in nature for an very large apex predator.
 
What? Ivan Marx is not shown in the group photo of the Pacific Northwest Expedition crew. Standing next to Tom Slick is Ed Patrick and Rene Dahinden. Your doggy shots show Slick and Marx.

Those shots of SLICK and MARX training dogs to hunt Bigfoot were from some of JOHN GREEN'S movie footage taken during the expedition organized after the WALLACE tracks got things rolling.

I've got another pic somewhere of DAHINDEN and MARX together with a caption under it identifying them both. It may have come from around the time Marx "found" more Cripplefoot tracks when he and Dahinden were on the hunt together.

You've got WALLACE, the no-nonsense construction boss who wants this whole Bigfoot thing to go away (allegedly) so much so that he hires on men to specifically hunt down whoever or whatever is bothering his crew. Those men come back with the tale of how Bigfoot killed a dog and ran right past them. Green, Sanderson and others print these yarns and the legend grows from there.

MARX, who was milking this "hunter guide" scheme for all it was worth, keeps leading people to Bigfoot tracks and Slick keeps him on retainer.

Finally, after Patterson and DeAtley score the "first film footage of the Bigfoot" Marx jumps into filmmaking too. So does Wallace. It just keeps going from there...

Ivan Marx fascinates me. His film appears to be a satire and exploitation of Bigfootery. Why and how would he produce his own film (1971) about the legend including showing a Bigfoot, and at the same time never mention Roger Patterson (1967) in the film? He is the narrator of his own film and his demeanor and tone is what intrigues me. It sounds so phony and contrived that I'm compelled to think it may have been intentionally done that way. Or, that Marx recognized that Bigfooters are so gullible that you can feed them virtually anything regardless of how ridiculous it may be. I feel something subtle was going on with Marx and I think he knew full well that Bigfoot was fully mythical.

Oh Marx knew alright. I've heard both versions of his movie. The original started out with his own voice, but he sounded too much like a hayseed so they replaced his voice with an actor's voice. That voice is the one you hear on the version that's been seen the most (and that you can find on YouTube today).

I don't know which was worse really. That actor voice-over is pretty hammy, but Marx' original voice was recorded with the film and was of poor quality. Guess they went for studio sound once the film was picked up for distribution.

OK, but lots of your attached images are too small to be of much benefit to viewers. You are working with the JREF attachment software and its limitations/restrictions. Try something new. Myself and others use common web-hosting file sites like Photobucket. I can recommend that one. It's free, easy to use, and can host some big images and animated gifs, etc. When you put these images into their server, you can then link to them from JREF. No need for JREF host site attachments after that. You can easily do big stuff with large file sizes. No more downsizing to fit JREF protocols. Photobucket.com. Go for it.

That has been frustrating for me so I'm taking your advice and trying out photobucket. Here's my first test... a video of something in my backyard at night from Halloween 2004...

http://s295.photobucket.com/albums/mm134/Dfoot/?action=view&current=DARKFACE-YARD.flv

... and a pic of Janos' bear feet.
http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm134/Dfoot/janosfeetaction-web.jpg

If both of these work I should be able to post clearer stuff (including that contract you were interested in).

Was $700 going to be enough to cover this costume including (you theorize) the mechanical mouth. Pay one guy in Hollywood for this, right? Do you tell him that $700 is your budget (max), and to not exceed that amount? Back to the cost... Morris was selling one of his simplistic gorilla suit for just under $500. It had no mechanical devices. Yet, these guys in Hollywood would do a fully custom Bigfoot costume with padding and moving mouth for only around $700? Is that reasonable?

Yep. I'd say so. According to the "measuring worth year to year" calculator that would be about $4000 today. Chambers had everyone in town churning out ape masks and the like around that time. They had lots of extra stuff just sitting around from old shows and new materials ordered too.

It would have been no problem to take the TAUREAN head and lay wetsuit material over a padded body base. Basically you already have the standard padded body so you would stretch your rubber layers over that (or fabric if that's what it is) and then glue and stitch on some of the tons of brown faux fur laying around. Add bear toes to the standard bootie mold and some breasts (like those I made) and you've got "Patty". The whole thing could have been done in a couple of days easily. And someone would have signed a contract and split the $4000 between them.

Ok, thanks. Patterson probably never flew to LA. You were supposed to ask why I was so persistent with this question (fly or drive?). I was wondering if Patterson could have bought a Morris gorilla suit and then drove it down to LA to have it customized in Hollywood. He could still ship it (especially if he flew), but bringing it in his own vehicle would make the most sense.

Morris' material was pretty much the same hair, but his head wasn't used. Patterson could have used this at an earlier date, but I have another theory about this idea from Morris.

Seems Wallace moved his family to Washington (although he worked all over) and Patterson visited him there in 1966 for his book to listen to Wallace's audio of Bigfoot. Right after this visit Patterson made what would become known as "the world's first Bigfoot audio recording". Bet that didn't sit too well with the secret father of Bigfoot.

Since Patterson next went right out and filmed a live Sasquatch and gained instant fame as the great Bigfoot hunter, I could see old Ray (like Marx) wanting to make his own movie. Turns out he did. If you look at the footage of Mrs. Wallace wearing an ape suit you'll see that it just happens to be the same type as the Morris' apesuit used in the magic show during "Diamonds are Forever". Yes... I think that may have really been Wallace on the phone using the name "Patterson" so he (Wallace) would not be the one having a suit traced back to him. Ever the clever prankster this guy. It's a theory anyway.

You again skipped answering my question directly. I'm asking about Oliphant being in the presense of Gimlin while he is wearing the wig. You see, this persistent questioning from me all come from a statement by you on March 20th:



According to that, we have Oliphant and DeAtley standing next to a wig-wearing Gimlin in NYC. It reads like a documented fact (from testimony), or a caption from a photograph. Or, you have assumed that Gimlin would have been wearing the wig (at that assembly of named people in NYC) and stated it as if it were a known and supportable fact.

Yes. Oliphant described Gimlin in a wig (his testimony). DeAtley is the one who suddenly had a memory lapse when Long tried to get him to talk about the wig get-up. I think because DeAtley tends to talk about money and other things, but then clams up when he's asked about fakery or fraud. Mainly because of his wife and her family, but also because he participated willingly in the hoax.

DeAtley says, "Did I participate in what I thought was a hoax for money? Yeah. I'm not proud of it." Long finally asks him if that means that when people say that's a Bigfoot on the film that they are wrong. DeAtley says they are wrong because in his opinion Bigfoot doesn't exist. That's the most he will say about that.

He still won't give out any info about the processing of the film or anything else that might incriminate him. He's already been to court once over this thing and that's plenty.

MY QUESTION TO ALL AT THIS STAGE IS THIS:

It appears to me that Wallace picked up on the stories of Wildmen with giant footprints and played some pranks on a few of his guys. When that went over and got some attention he went further and began to make tracks that were really a combination of giant human and bear tracks. It looks as if he simply extended a bear foot and made a toe bigger for his most famous set of wooden double-balled print-makers.

http://s295.photobucket.com/albums/mm134/Dfoot/?action=view&current=alaska0607_bear.jpg

Wallace made tracks that didn't even have the same bone structure most of the time. Patterson came along and gave us a rubber foot with movement instead of simply stamping an imprint. Others followed these guys with mixed results. We got Freeman stamping fingerprints onto some. Finally we get to the misidentifying of overflow with dermal ridges....

So what would it take to really make a good convincing print (or film) of the elusive Bigfoot that the skoftics would not so easily discount today?*

*A friend was asking me this... nothing to do with me at all.:o
 
Last edited:
Parchers sarcasm detector isn't working today.
No offense, Drew, but I think it's your sincerity detector that isn't working today. WP isn't addressing you as a proponent of the 'broken wing' garbage but rather the many non-specific people at the BFF who have embraced that ridiculous idea. I personally immediately understood both of your separate expressions of derision on the subject. You parlayed the footer stance with a short question formatted critique while WP went into particular detail on the idea. That is a good thing because we all know it's oft-repeated footer garbage that deserves a thorough dismantling as WP illustrated.

Know what I mean, Vern?
 
http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=21716&hl=kildeer&st=25
As you can see, I speak of the typical eluding behavior of an animal, and refer to the footer's 'leading them away from the baby idea' as the 'kildeer' response.

Drew on BFF said:
An elusive beast such as a deer or in this case a bigfoot, when approached by a predator, in this case a human, would run directly to cover, in this case the woods. It would not saunter, perpendicularly to the threat, and then upon reaching the cover(woods) take off in a run. Which is what Patty did...

This has been explained before, I believe I read somewhere on this very forum, in explaining the unusual behavior of the Beast that day, that Patty was 'leading them away from a baby bigfoot hiding in the woods' I call this the Kildeer theory.

Tis the only time I ever mentioned it, and I think most people that know me, know that I am speaking sarcastically of the 'unusual behavior' of the giant beast that day.

Plus DXM followed it up beautifully
DXM said:
Regarding the "Kildeer theory". I've often speculated that Bigfoot is the only creature who requires film or video tape to reproduce. When ever Patty's behaviour is questioned, one of the many answers given is that there must be a baby close by. Patty is protecting a baby, the MD creature is lifting a baby onto its shoulders and the Freeman footage also shows a baby. I'm sure we are missing a great many baby blobsquatches in the photos of adult blobsquatches
 
I would like feedback on the possible creation of a "Destruction of Bigfoot Enthusiasts' Excuses" thread. I am undecided as to whether separating general bigfoot discussion from the PGF thread is necessary as they so often intersect. I would like to ask the regular participants of this thread their opinion on the matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom