Merged Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 4

[Correa Neto]

No it doesn't. The only option up for grabs is debunking. The PGF can never prove itself, right?

Not exactly.

If a Patty-like bigfoot specimen existed... But there isn't.

Patty-like costumes exist. Hoaxes and hoaxers also exist.

So...

 

[William Parcher]

So, are you telling me that you equate Limpy with Patty?

Absolutely. Both stand as "undebunked". The PGF is older than the Marx film but Marx Limpy remains as having not been debunked. Who knows how many have tried and failed to debunk it and it also doesn't matter how many people in the world think that it is a hoax. Only the debunking counts, right? Isn't that what you are arguing for with the PGF?

How would you debunk Limpy? You know that you can't look for and point out things like seams, joiners, cuffs, fake fur, etc. That is because the boys and girls at BFF have already spent years amassing hundreds of photos of gorillas and chimps whose bodies show things that look just like costume "flaws". If you can find a picture of a living chimp with fur that looks like pantleg cuffs then you can never debunk any costume that shows a pant cuff even if it actually is a pant cuff. Yes, the Bigfooters have already sealed off any chance of debunking a picture or film based on seeing features of a suit. They already found a picture of a live gorilla showing that bit that you think is revealing a costumed man.

You can't debunk Limpy. Don't even try.

 

[LTC8K6]

I think we skeptics would indeed consider the Limpy film debunked, shortly after it surfaced. Some footers were critical of Marx's film, and actually investigated the film and the story around the film.

Completely unlike the treatment of the PGF.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/byrne_marx1971.htm

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/bossburg.htm

As far as proving that the creature in the Marx "limpy" film is a man in a suit? No, I don't think that's ever been done.

I would agree that it's probably not possible to just take the film in isolation and debunk it as far as proving that limpy is not a "real bigfoot".

I suspect that if Marx had not told any story about the film, it might still be held up as a film of a bigfoot. It was Marx's story of the film that got his film in trouble, imo. It was the tale he told that some footers couldn't swallow.

Rene Dahinden believed in the limpy film. John Green was certain the limpy film was the real deal and offered Marx $800 for a copy and later wrote that he thought the film was genuine.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

In this day and age, even the most credulous of bleevers can see that the Ivan Marx film shows someone inside a costume. There are key differences between an ordinary guy wearing a suit and and the Patterson film subject. I'm not saying that this means she's real, but just that it's worth investigating further .

 

[Resume]

In this day and age, even the most credulous of bleevers can see that the Ivan Marx film shows someone inside a costume. There are key differences between an ordinary guy wearing a suit and and the Patterson film subject. I'm not saying that this means she's real, but just that it's worth investigating further .

The highlighted are exactly the same thing. No monkey. Sorry.

However, there are other very cool biological entities. Here's one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_pangolin

 

[LTC8K6]

In this day and age, even the most credulous of bleevers can see that the Ivan Marx film shows someone inside a costume. There are key differences between an ordinary guy wearing a suit and and the Patterson film subject. I'm not saying that this means she's real, but just that it's worth investigating further .

So how come John Green, who presumably saw a much higher quality version than what's on Youtube, believed it?

Besides, we are not talking about what you think just by looking. We are talking about what you can show from what you can see in the film.

Can you, from the film, demonstrate that Limpy cannot be a sasquatch? Or that Limpy must be a man in a costume?

Remember the context as well when you want to immediately dismiss Limpy as ridiculous. Limpy is supposed to be a starving and badly injured sasquatch in a lot of pain and unable to walk normally.

Marx had an audience he was playing to.

 

[FrederickEason]

Absolutely. Both stand as "undebunked". The PGF is older than the Marx film but Marx Limpy remains as having not been debunked. Who knows how many have tried and failed to debunk it and it also doesn't matter how many people in the world think that it is a hoax. Only the debunking counts, right? Isn't that what you are arguing for with the PGF?

How would you debunk Limpy? You know that you can't look for and point out things like seams, joiners, cuffs, fake fur, etc. That is because the boys and girls at BFF have already spent years amassing hundreds of photos of gorillas and chimps whose bodies show things that look just like costume "flaws". If you can find a picture of a living chimp with fur that looks like pantleg cuffs then you can never debunk any costume that shows a pant cuff even if it actually is a pant cuff. Yes, the Bigfooters have already sealed off any chance of debunking a picture or film based on seeing features of a suit. They already found a picture of a live gorilla showing that bit that you think is revealing a costumed man.

You can't debunk Limpy. Don't even try.

Limpy is a man in a suit. There is nothing to suggest otherwise.

 

[GT/CS]

Yes, but how can you prove it?

 

[FrederickEason]

Yes, but how can you prove it?

Because there is no other creature that has such a human-like shape and human-like movements. If such a creature could be found that more closely resembles the one in the footage, then it would become the most likely candidate instead of a human in a suit.

But since such a creature has not yet been found, there is no reason to believe otherwise.

 

[GT/CS]

I'm guessing you have never run that argument past any 'footers because you still have not provided any evidence that it is not a bigfoot.

Ironic isn't it?

 

[FrederickEason]

I'm guessing you have never run that argument past any 'footers because you still have not provided any evidence that it is not a bigfoot.

Ironic isn't it?

Well, that would mean expecting them to understand inductive reasoning, which is a bit much to ask of them.

 

[LTC8K6]

Limpy is a man in a suit. There is nothing to suggest otherwise.

Yes, and I think our point was that you can interchange Limpy and Patty in your response.

 

[Correa Neto]

Remember, some of these folks somehow manage to shut down any thought lines that go against their beliefs.

Example:
Yesterday I was watching 2001 - A Space Odissey in HD. Those hominids from the begining, sure, some scenes show problems with the costumes. But at most of the scenes, those costumes are shown at much higher definition than Patty. And they work better too.

Many a footer will refuse to acknowledge these facts. They will say Patty is more realistic than 2001's hominids, too real for FX tech of those times.

They will not make the connection between Limpy and Patty.

 

[clayflingythingy]

Off topic: The "monkey" scene is the only part of 2001 I can stand.

On topic: The PGF may be poor quality, but Patty still looks like a bloke in a suit!

 

[fzwylde]

Inconclusive

I would say that, having watched the PGF on many documentaries, and on various videos on the net, i can't tell if it's a real creature, or just a man in a suit. I guess we'll never really know. People who want to believe it's a Bigfoot will do.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

... I'm not saying that this means she's real, but just that it's worth investigating further .

Investigated by who, and to what end?

There is no interest in the legitimate scientific community ...

Have you noticed that the footer TV shows don't spend too much time, if any on the PGF? They don't want to pay the royalties..

 

[OntarioSquatch]

Footer tv shows are not something I would expect to take a look at the Patterson film. They often have their own Bigfoot agenda. But watch any National Geographic documentary on Bigfoot, and you'll see that a huge portion of it is dedicated to the film

 

[GT/CS]

Are you talking about programs produced by National Geographic or programs shown on their network?

What are the production dates of the programs that include the PGF?

 

[Resume]

Footer tv shows are not something I would expect to take a look at the Patterson film. They often have their own Bigfoot agenda. But watch any National Geographic documentary on Bigfoot, and you'll see that a huge portion of it is dedicated to the film

Let's say you're correct in this assertion.

So what?

Then,

Where's the monkey? Lots and lots of self-defined monkey hunters ("researchers") but no monkey. Manifest Destiny mongers travelled from sea to shining sea, o'er purple mountain's majesty shooting out every large mammal endemic to the U.S. save the one nearest to footer's hearts. Do you find that logical? Settlers killing all sorts of creatures to the brink of extinction and beyond and yet not one monkey, not a one, no specimens to date?

So you guys ignore that and focus on an unfocused film of a guy in a monkey suit. What does that say about your enthusiasm?

 

[Correa Neto]

Well, IIRC, one of those NG shows on bigfoot showed PGF and an actor replicating the unreplicable-by-humans Patty walk just in front of Meldrum.

So, sorry footers, its a costume. Why would any serious TV network or producer care about it? Maybe if you are making a series on how gullible people can be...