Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 3

[desertgal]

An estimate gathered by 6 highly qualified individual sources. Please, it is not just a hypothesis anymore. It is a near fact.

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say the 5'9 to 6'2 estimate was hypothetical, nor did I say it was inaccurate. There are a number of ways to arrive at a reasonably accurate estimate of Patty's height, and I have little doubt that the estimate is reasonably accurate. But it IS just that: an estimate. My point was that you can't make the claim that anyone knows Patty's exact height. An estimated 5 inch difference in height is hardly exact.

 

[Astrophotographer]

The more you accuse me of refusing to answer....the longer my rebuttal list/post will become....and I will post it, and re-post it, in my own defense, after every single accusation.

Are you ever going to answer my question or are you refusing to answer a bigfoot question?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Another misrepresentation of what I've said, by Sewer King...

Originally Posted by kitakaze

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti

...Patty's arm length can be equal to the arm length of a person...

Originally Posted by SweatyYeti
It's possible to make a SUIT with arms as long as Patty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look at those. Aren't they a pretty pair? I just want to get them framed or engraved on a plaque or I don't know what. They're just really special, aren't they?

Sweaty concedes that by using his very own crayon method that the length of Patty's arms can be equal to that of a person.

This is what I actually said...

Patty's arm length can be equal to the arm length of a person who has been unlucky enough to become engulfed in ratty, re-cycled carpeting.......a suit.

So, re-capping......I have said these two basically identical things...

It's possible to make a SUIT with arms as long as Patty.

Patty's arm length can be equal to the arm length of a person who has been unlucky enough to become engulfed in ratty, re-cycled carpeting.......a suit.

This is just one more example of Sewer Boy's twisted distortions of things that I've said.

It'll be added to my collection......a long, growing collection, which I will be posting in these threads, over and over again.

kitakaze wants to continue with his sewer posts.....fine. Then they'll pollute this forum.

 

[wvbig]

I'm not sure if the P/G film is real or not. However, I think most of the current evidence points to it being real. All of the stories I've heard about it being a hoax (who was involved, how it was done, why it was done, etc...) have holes in them you could drive a truck through. Then there are the longstanding, unclaimed rewards being offered for the costume & for any proof that it is a hoax

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

I'm not sure if the P/G film is real or not. However, I think most of the current evidence points to it being real. All of the stories I've heard about it being a hoax (who was involved, how it was done, why it was done, etc...) have holes in them you could drive a truck through. Then there are the longstanding, unclaimed rewards being offered for the costume & for any proof that it is a hoax

What current evidence?

You dont think the "real BF" version has holes in it you can drive a truck thru?

 

[SweatyYeti]

Are you ever going to answer my question or are you refusing to answer a bigfoot question?

Sure. I've been busy, enjoying the long weekend.

My son and I had front row seats at the Providence Bruins game last night. We saw a great hockey game.......except that the Bruins lost in overtime.



The short answer is.....No, I don't think that I have absolutely proven, beyond all doubt, that Bob's head is too large to have fit inside Patty's....but I think the comparisons show there's a very good chance....a high probability....that his head is too wide, all around, to have fit.

(Again....and as always....nobody can ask me a Bigfoot-related question that I am afraid to answer, or will respond with an outright refusal to answer that particular question.)


As for those two posts of yours that you mentioned, I'll read them and respond to them later, when I have time to.

 

[SweatyYeti]

I'm not sure if the P/G film is real or not. However, I think most of the current evidence points to it being real. All of the stories I've heard about it being a hoax (who was involved, how it was done, why it was done, etc...) have holes in them you could drive a truck through.

Then there are the longstanding, unclaimed rewards being offered for the costume & for any proof that it is a hoax

Very good point, WV!

I've recently made that same point. It applies to Bob Gimlin....who, allegedly, could write a tell-all book, detailing the whole event.

Despite the Film's ever-growing legendary status, and the fact that most of the scientists who've studied the film in detail have decided in favor of it being legit....Bob Gimlin has never written the book.

The book with a potentially very big reward.

 

[Astrophotographer]

The short answer is.....No, I don't think that I have absolutely proven, beyond all doubt, that Bob's head is too large to have fit inside Patty's....but I think the comparisons show there's a very good chance....a high probability....that his head is too wide, all around, to have fit.

This is not really an answer. Are you stating that you have no measurements to demonstrate your claim is true? This was the context of my question. If this is true then you can not make the claim. It is based SOLELY on your subjective opinion (with flawed "comparisons") and not by any objective measurement. Actually, my measurements show the head's width on the comparison image I posted to be about even. You never refuted that and then shifted the argument to is head was "too square" or "not pointy enough".

 

[Astrophotographer]

I'm not sure if the P/G film is real or not. However, I think most of the current evidence points to it being real. All of the stories I've heard about it being a hoax (who was involved, how it was done, why it was done, etc...) have holes in them you could drive a truck through. Then there are the longstanding, unclaimed rewards being offered for the costume & for any proof that it is a hoax

False reasoning. A suit can exist. A person can wear a suit. Therefore, it is probably that a guy in a suit could be the subject in the film. On the other hand, we are supposed to believe this is a film of a creature that has never been proven to exist in any way for 40 years since the film was made. It seems highly unlikely that the subject in the film is an actual bigfoot and it is more likely that it is a man in a suit. Argue all you want about producing the suit (which could have been destroyed or lost) and that Gimlin keeps to his story (didn't the surgeons photo hoax stand for many decades without anyone admitting it was a hoax?). Instead the argument should be "where is the good evidence that bigfoot exists"? Until that is shown, the best solution remains that it is a guy in a suit.

 

[jhunter1163]

Very good point, WV!

I've recently made that same point. It applies to Bob Gimlin....who, allegedly, could write a tell-all book, detailing the whole event.

Despite the Film's ever-growing legendary status, and the fact that most of the scientists who've studied the film in detail have decided in favor of it being legit....Bob Gimlin has never written the book.

The book with a potentially very big reward.

But haven't most of the special-effects people who have studied the film in detail concluded that it's a guy in a suit?

 

[kitakaze]

Despite the Film's ever-growing legendary status, and the fact that most of the scientists who've studied the film in detail have decided in favor of it being legit....

List please.

Bob Gimlin has never written the book.

The book with a potentially very big reward.

Potentially... and yet Greg Long made how much off his book? On top of that he gets to die with the legacy of being a hoaxer and spend the rest of his years being mauled by rage-filled disillusioned Bigfoot geeks. I think it's understandable he just shows up at the odd convention, wears a cute scarf, and soaks up the love from people who'd never dare ask him an uncomfortable question.

 

[Vortigern99]

Gentlemen, there is a thread for the Memorial Day footage. It's currently on page 1 of the Gen. Skep. forum. I come to this thread to read about the PGF and matters attendant to its discussion. Please, will you take this sidebar discussion to the appropriate thread? Thank you.

 

[Blackdog]

I have to agree with Wolftrax (and I usually do), I'm sure he has a point here because he, and I, have a long history with Sweaty and his tactics, much longer than anyone here. Also a little side track to a 50 page thread (the 3rd of 3 so far) rehashing the same old junk can only be a good thing IMO.

A little advice Vort, first calling wolftrax "junior" only shows your lack of knowledge on the subject of the internet bigfoot world, his knowledge on the subject vastly eclipses yours. Since you don't know how old he is I have to assume you believe yourself to be his superior.
Also you are wasting your time arguing with sweaty and trynig to get any concessions out of him. You have to catch him in his contradictions and double speak.

 

[Vortigern99]

Bottom line is, this thread is about the PGF. Let's stick to the topic, shall we?

 

[Blackdog]

If you think this has gone too far off topic contact a moderator, last I looked you aren't one.

Like I said maybe wolftrax' point is relevant, but you'll never know unless you let it play out.

 

[jhunter1163]

I guess my question got lost in the shuffle, so I'll ask it again:

Haven't most of the special-effects people who have studied the PGF, people who know a suit when they see one, concluded that the subject of the PGF is a guy in a suit? (the exception being Bill Munns)

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

I guess my question got lost in the shuffle, so I'll ask it again:

Haven't most of the special-effects people who have studied the PGF, people who know a suit when they see one, concluded that the subject of the PGF is a guy in a suit? (the exception being Bill Munns)

The majority have- yes

 

[Vortigern99]

I guess my question got lost in the shuffle, so I'll ask it again:

Haven't most of the special-effects people who have studied the PGF, people who know a suit when they see one, concluded that the subject of the PGF is a guy in a suit? (the exception being Bill Munns)

Chris Walas, Stan Winston and Rick Baker have all gone on record as saying it's a guy in a suit. Winston said, and I quote, "It's a bad hair suit." Also, Janos Prahoska initially said he didn't think anyone could make such a convincing suit, but then in the same interview, when asked directly, opined that it would take "about six hours" (I think he said six) to glue on all the hair.

Are there any others that anyone knows specific details about?

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Chris Walas, Stan Winston and Rick Baker have all gone on record as saying it's a guy in a suit. Winston said, and I quote, "It's a bad hair suit." Also, Janos Prahoska initially said he didn't think anyone could make such a convincing suit, but then in the same interview, when asked directly, opined that it would take "about six hours" (I think he said six) to glue on all the hair.

Are there any others that anyone knows specific details about?

Verne

 

[wvbig]

The majority have- yes

I know some have said they could do it. Then when they tried, they failed miserably. The late Jonas Prohaska(sp?), who was an actor who portrayed various apes in movies, said he didn't think it was a person in a costume. But if it was, it was the best costume he'd ever seen. This is where I think the idea of it being a guy in a suit, runs into direct conflict with what has been reported about Roger Patterson. That he was broke. I would think if it was a guy in a suit, it would've been debunked years ago unless it was a very very good custom made suit. Very very good custom made suit=$$$$$$$$$$$ So how would a guy who was broke come up with that caliber of costume?