Bigfoot Follies: part trois

Seems the old tricks of blurry, shaking camera and brave outdoorsman running like a ninny are passed by now. I watched a compilation of bf sighting vids that the critter was mildly curious at best if he noticed the camera or just didn't care in the least. The "beast" suit ranged from straight up gorilla suits to some with oddly human features .

A few staples that remain are there was little reference to scale and distance. Never near anything of a known size to compare them to. Always slightly bigger than most of the trees in the area however. Always at the edge of a clearing in a woods.
It still looks like theater work but the blurry lens trick isn't always in use anymore.
Now the cameras are amazingly stable as if on a tripod and the need to run from bf is not present. He doesn't threaten anyone as much now.

The narrator of the compilation was completely convinced all videos were genuine somehow despite the bf appearing to be a different species of great ape in each one. Black to tan or orangeish hair, crouched to fully erect posture, stocky or tall and somewhat lean in build it didn't matter.

Bet he had to dig hard to find the best non cliche vids out there too. In a sea of crap he got some fairly clear (if distant) footage.
 
Last edited:
ChrisBFRPKY said:
I think Patterson actually believed he filmed a Bigfoot.

I think he did also ~ seems like it was a curse more than anything for the guy.

I think of Patty being the first and last one of it's kind ~ A staged encounter that somehow just captured what a Sasquatch would be at the time and costumes available ~

That said ~ I love the film and what has been done to enhance it over the years is always is a good watch

Still holds up to this day

RRS
Click to expand...
 
AmyStrange said:
Or maybe... just maybe, I'm open-minded enough to understand that my skepticism of Bigfoot may be wrong, but of course, pretend skeptics would NEVER entertain that notion.

-
Click to expand...

Yawn.

The old "no amount of evidence would convince you" fantasy.

We've never heard that straw man argument before.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
Yawn.

The old "no amount of evidence would convince you" fantasy.

We've never heard that straw man argument before.
Click to expand...
It's also, as I think I may have mentioned before, the "skeptical of skepticism" argument, which is nonsensical when you realise that the entire point of skepticism is to come as close to the truth of a matter as you can. You shouldn't be skeptical of the process of determining what is real and what is not.
 
AmyStrange said:
Or maybe... just maybe, I'm open-minded enough to understand that my skepticism of Bigfoot may be wrong, but of course, pretend skeptics would NEVER entertain that notion.

-
Click to expand...

Great, find a body. We find rare animals all the time. We document jaguars and ocelots in Arizona and bobcats in Maryland regularly. For all your claimed skepticism, you fail to grasp the triviality that would be documenting your furry forest friend.
 
Craig4 said:
Great, find a body. We find rare animals all the time. We document jaguars and ocelots in Arizona and bobcats in Maryland regularly. For all your claimed skepticism, you fail to grasp the triviality that would be documenting your furry forest friend.
Click to expand...

Forget a body. Just find some poop! Even bears **** in the woods. :boxedin:
 
There's a great NatGeo video of a snow leopard stalking a markhor. Contrast that with the blurfests that are bigfoot videos.
 
It was filmed on super8 film in a clockwork camera by a guy on horseback.

You don't need more than those three elements to understand why it's fairly crap compared to the phone in your pocket.

I seen the big screen bf film made in the 70's or so. Dad took the family and it was par for the course of that era of paranormal woo slinging. Fifty years later we only have their confession it was faked.

I just seen a yt vids is available that a guy has a footie clan that visits his home and he has befriended them as neighbors. Even gave each of them names.

But, he won't reveal where, offer more than scant details all with a huge "TRUST ME!"
because he says he has to protect them. I smelled bovine defication just watching the intro. Didn't not with watching more.
 
Fact checks aknowledged then. But I seen a film taken by a man on horseback made by somebody that couldn't or wouldn't keep the animal still very well. It was in an area being actively logged at the time.
I recall this well as it was difficult as a veiwer to see whatever he was filming for all the movement. It was also stated as that was part of the reason for the quality of the film.

I haven't followed up on edits done years later to stabilize the footage or take out bits. It wasn't worth the effects.
 
Patterson used a Cine-Kodak K100 16-mm camera, which he rented from (but never returned to) Sheppard's Camera Shop in Yakima. Other footage taken with the camera exists (Patterson and Gimlin on horseback, Patterson pouring plaster for footprint casts).

The Bluff Creek footage begins as Patterson pulls out and starts the camera. Either Patterson fell when his horse fell (Patterson's story) or he smoothly but hastily dismounted (Gimlin's story). In any case, with the camera filming, Patterson sprinted toward the subject, resulting in a good many frames with the camera wildly gyrating, the subject barely glimpsed as a dark splotch. Then the camera steadies and we get the roughly one minute of the subject walking, turning to look back, and then continuing away from the camera.

Might that be what you're remembering?
 
There was a bf movie at theatres in the late 70's, early 80's that featured that particular footage as the kickoff point. Pretty much as rock solid evidence according to the movies director. Then the rest of it was castings, unconfirmed eyewitness accounts taken years later and some other blurry footage from unknown sources for the most part.

Yes, that is the footage I recall. There were extensive bits with Patterson trying to explain what he filmed despite the horse moving so much it made it difficult for anything to be clearly seen.

I do know that by the 90's only enhanced stills and short clips taken from that footage were used on the then popular woo tv genre.
Other sources had created clearer, maybe better "evidence" that became the meat of the genre.

I grew up watching illusionist, magician shows every chance we got and learned early on the truth was usually in the missing details nobody was telling, if not actively making effort to hide them.
I took that same vision into the woo tv/paranormal tv realm and it became clear they forgot to mention where, when, whom or most other vital information that would cast doubts on the story they wanted to sell.

It also became obvious that deep woods, wilderness areas in general were barely accessible areas on the shows. But could be easily accessible by boat or roads somehow anyway.
 
That movie might be ~ Sasquatch The Legend of Bigfoot ~ It's filled with all kinds of BS and ********ter's
Personally I like ~ Bigfoot's Wild Weekend (2012) much Better
 
Last edited:
Craig4 said:
Great, find a body. We find rare animals all the time. We document jaguars and ocelots in Arizona and bobcats in Maryland regularly. For all your claimed skepticism, you fail to grasp the triviality that would be documenting your furry forest friend.
Click to expand...

It has to boil down to this. There is no place even in a vast country like the USA that they could exist so that they are both occasionally seen but leave no evidence of their existence. We share the same habitat.
 
Patterson was making/pitching a film about hunting Bigfeets. It would be astounding that he didn't have a suit (as reported by some who saw the suit)) for such an endeavor. Once he saw how "good" it turned out the con-man, thief went ahead and pitched it as the real thing and the rest, as they say is history.
 
Cervelo said:
Patterson was making/pitching a film about hunting Bigfeets. It would be astounding that he didn't have a suit (as reported by some who saw the suit)) for such an endeavor. Once he saw how "good" it turned out the con-man, thief went ahead and pitched it as the real thing and the rest, as they say is history.
Click to expand...

He also rented a gorilla suit that is very well evidenced in "The Making of Bigfoot" and of course the problem was... it looked like a gorilla.

That's why he had to buy a suit from Philip Morris, also well documented in the same book.

One of the most disingenuous tactics of the pretend skeptics is to dismiss the mountain of circumstantial evidence surrounding the hoax in order to pretend it is just one man's word (Like Bob Heironimus admitting he wore the suit).
 
Resume said:
Jesus Christ, that place is still active? I guess it's a core group of credules, though that cowboy hat credule may be is the dumbest of the group.
Click to expand...

It seems to be nothing more than a circle jerk at this point of their little group.
It was fun watching Norse getting his ass handed to him, he seems to spend all his time sock puppet hunting LOL
 
William Parcher said:
Also it was on 16 mm film and using a quality camera.
Click to expand...

Which was, no doubt, a "clockwork" camera, because pretty much all cameras were then. But a quick google tells me that 16mm film gives a resoultion equivalent to at least 1080p. Perhaps not as good as the best digital video we can take now, but certainly capable of producing quality images. The poor quality of the Patterson film was not the fault of the camera. I think it was likely intentional, as Patterson knew that a really good movie would not stand scrutiny.
 
I know what would convince me that bigfoot is real, and I think it is probably true of most skeptics: Clear physical evidence. Find a dead bigfoot, or at least a big enough piece of one to make it clear that it is not from a known species of animal and is consistent with a large bipedal primate. DNA data would help nail it down.

I do not expect this to ever come about. If bigfoot were real, it would have happened by now, but if it did happen, I would happily change my opinion. I would love for bigfoot to be real. I'd love to see one. But the probability of it existing is very near zero
 
CORed said:
I know what would convince me that bigfoot is real, and I think it is probably true of most skeptics: Clear physical evidence. Find a dead bigfoot, or at least a big enough piece of one to make it clear that it is not from a known species of animal and is consistent with a large bipedal primate. DNA data would help nail it down.
Click to expand...

And it's not like this is an extraordinary ask. A specimen is fairly standard for establishing a new taxon.
 
CORed said:
I know what would convince me that bigfoot is real, and I think it is probably true of most skeptics: Clear physical evidence. Find a dead bigfoot, or at least a big enough piece of one to make it clear that it is not from a known species of animal and is consistent with a large bipedal primate. DNA data would help nail it down.
Click to expand...

Oh, come now. With clear physical evidence you can prove anything that is remotely true. ;)
 
Spektator said:
Oh, come now. With clear physical evidence you can prove anything that is remotely true. ;)
Click to expand...

And we get mild criticism for not considering the mountains of circumstanal evidence that has never been supported by physical evidence.
The believers think they own the playing field.
 
CORed said:
Which was, no doubt, a "clockwork" camera, because pretty much all cameras were then. But a quick google tells me that 16mm film gives a resoultion equivalent to at least 1080p. Perhaps not as good as the best digital video we can take now, but certainly capable of producing quality images. The poor quality of the Patterson film was not the fault of the camera. I think it was likely intentional, as Patterson knew that a really good movie would not stand scrutiny.
Click to expand...

As an experiment, I tried to reproduce the level of shaking going on in the PGF and was amazed how hard you have to try in order to produce footage that bad.

Generally science requires that people be able to repeat the experiment to establish independent verification. Instead I was scolded here.
 
The scene of the film was a logging area covered in slash and some seriously uneven terrain. No logging equipment seen so it was already gone or behind the camera.
I remember that well from the film.
It would be a feat of superior skill to walk through that while filming and keep it steady.
But to make it a bit worse just trying to walk fast would probably do the trick. The ape suit was just outside/on the edge of the slash area and walked on near level ground on a hillside.

Probably a good choice for somebody that can't see well for the costume.
 
8enotto said:
The scene of the film was a logging area covered in slash and some seriously uneven terrain. No logging equipment seen so it was already gone or behind the camera.
I remember that well from the film.
It would be a feat of superior skill to walk through that while filming and keep it steady.
But to make it a bit worse just trying to walk fast would probably do the trick. The ape suit was just outside/on the edge of the slash area and walked on near level ground on a hillside.

Probably a good choice for somebody that can't see well for the costume.
Click to expand...

I've been logging for 37 years. Felled over 50 trees this year, less than average. We cannot cut along streams. We have a setback. What you are seeing in the PGF is the normal wind blown, insect killed, or undercut bank falls. Not logging slash.

That's why there are no clean chain saw cuts. These are broken trees and limbs, not cut. The spring high water cleans all the sand bars off, and leaves branches and stuff in the eddys. That's why where you see that stuff collecting up there are depressions.

These are lazy guys who rode their horses on logging roads to film their fake documentary and there was a stream crossing right there. We use the easiest terrain for our crossings. I don't put my bulldozer or other logging equipment at risk.

The experiment I did was on far rougher terrain. Patterson is on a easy sand bar of a stream, not bushwhacking like I was in my experiment.

Am I really awesome - or is it that you just didn't do the experiment like before when I raised this point.

Patterson was this stud rodeo cowboy, a gymnast and performing tumbler that could walk upstairs on his hands. A boxing champion like me. But he can't hold a camera steady if he wanted to?

Was Patterson a genius level IQ to have Bob walk on clear sandy ground? Then the genius became a moron and choose the hardest ground for himself to walk on?

No sense in filming from sitting right there on his horse. Or having the horse move closer. Oh, but you want a perfectly steady hand, right? So you dismount and cause maximum chaos with the camera instead. In the name of steady shooting.
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
I do see a certain amount of paranoia there. Like anyone here cares that much about bigfootery? ;)
Click to expand...

Well, if you believe in bigfoot, you'll believe in just about anything.

Read Northern Light's post; he's still a member here, and he's still FoS.
 
From the phenomenon that is Terrible Maps:

80cc733a4fb802fc2e01e7adeacfc7a5.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom