• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Northern Lights said:
Yes, I am interested in opposing views and I have not viewed the comparisons and will try and find them if no one is able to post a link.

Regarding the "pro-bigfoot rhetoric", I actually don't walk the party line and am quite critical of the vast majority of the garbage that is out there. I've been out on BFRO expeditions where just about everyone is saying they are seeing "eye shine" and hearing whoops, and attributing every twig snap to squatches and I'm just shaking my head in amusement.

I honestly try to have squatches end up as the last possible explanation, instead of the first. So yes, I'm absolutely open to alternative ideas and explanations. Thanks
NL
Click to expand...

Here's one post showing the waders. It's not the one I'm looking for but it'll do in a pinch.
An obvious similarity between the two photos is highlighted with a pink "X". They are identical. IDENTICAL
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9029988&postcount=197
 
Gilbert Syndrome said:
NL, You cannot possibly claim to be critical if you totally aren't bothered by the many glaring errors in the PGF story.
Click to expand...

There have been times when I've seen some things that have really bothered me. For example, the drawing that Roger did prior to 1967 depicting a female Sasquatch and then he ends up a year later filming an obvious female squatch. That really seemed like too much of a coincidence until I learned that drawing was only one of many he did and was deliberately cherry picked out as the only one. There were drawings of both male and female squatches and it makes sense to have some illustrations for a book when publishing.

I've also looked at the almost comical number of times Bob H. has contradicted himself on the story and he is the only one to ever come out and say it was him.

I haven't read through the entire history of this long thread, but I'm working on it. This stuff is probably in there.
 
Gilbert Syndrome said:
Patterson can't quite decide whether he fell off his horse, said horse landing on him, or if he simply dismounted with ease.
Click to expand...

It's hilarious that in one version he ends up under the horse with a flattened stirrup and an injured foot, and in another, he's such a good rider that he dismounts easily with the camera and starts filming.
 
In one version they tracked patty for 3.5 miles. In another they could only track her for a short distance.

It's also of note that in the 1992 interview, the panicked horses ran back the way Roger and Bob had rode in, meaning they would have been well away from where Patty walked across bluff creek when Roger and Bob went to find them.
 
Plus, if we're to believe that the horse fell on him, bent the stirrup and injured his foot, would he be able to chase Patty?
 
Last edited:
Finally watched the portion of the video in question.
Munns just keeps saying this is impossible and that can never happen if Patty is wearing a costume, but he doesn't provide any substantial evidence for his statements. He just expects everyone to accept his word as the gospel. The few examples of human anatomy he provides don't match the lines on Patty and he admits, and says numerous times, that the corresponding lines on humans show up only on old fat humans! He keeps saying that there is no reason for a suit maker to make a line here or there but he doesn't take into account that a non-suit maker modified the suit, and the odd lines are not intentional, they are inadvertent folds and wrinkles.

The guy is completely dishonest.
 
Last edited:
Was it Patterson or Gimlin who claimed roger had to get under a poncho to change the film in the camera?

Munns, in his analyzation, says there is a flare at the end of the film, indicating it was changed in daylight..
 
Northern Lights said:
There have been times when I've seen some things that have really bothered me. For example, the drawing that Roger did prior to 1967 depicting a female Sasquatch and then he ends up a year later filming an obvious female squatch. That really seemed like too much of a coincidence until I learned that drawing was only one of many he did and was deliberately cherry picked out as the only one. There were drawings of both male and female squatches and it makes sense to have some illustrations for a book when publishing.
Click to expand...

Okay, but are you aware of Patterson's fascination with the Roe account involving a female bigfoot seen walking behind a log, and that Patterson indisputably plagiarized a drawing by an artist named Kuntzler in order to depict the scene in his (P's) book ...Abominable Snowmen, which pre-dates the PG film?

Most of us here find that damning evidence.
 
GT/CS said:
Do we know if 15mm Munns knows enough about cameras to make that determination?
Click to expand...

Well I'd say that if he didn't know that you could make a splice in an original piece of film that wouldn't be visible in the copy, he probably doesn't know enough about cameras or film in general to make any concrete determinations about much of anything. Guy worked in the movie industry making special effects, and yet he still didn't know that splices can be entirely invisible in the final copies. It defies imagination.

Gone With The Wind was filmed all in one go, you know. They never stopped the cameras and spliced the dailies together, they just made all the actors keep working until it was all done perfectly. Worst ten days of Clark Gable's life. The last line was supposed to be "Frankly, my dear, I don't mind at all" but after all that poor Clark was fed up and cranky. Don't even get me started on what happened on the set of War & Peace :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom