• 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 - Part 5

AlaskaBushPilot said:
Very serious investigators. A dog, a gun, and look what expert trackers. Don't those tracks look amateurish?
Click to expand...

The tracks are hilariously bad. And they flew in for them...with a dog...

Wallace must have split his pants from doubling over and laughing.

Then Roger gets this great bigfoot movie, and no footer bothers to even go to the site for over a week.

Only one footer bothers at all, and it's only Titmus and his brother in law 9 days later.

They flew in, with a dog, guns, and cameras, for those goofy tracks, and then crickets for the Patty crossing...no interest in that site.
 
Love seeing the split ball tracks.

Also, there is an excellent account (way prior to his death) of Ray Wallace in Robert Michael Pyle's "Where Bigfoot Walks" that should erase any doubt in anyone's mind about anything Wallace was ever involved in.
 
Now I'm at a keyboard, here's the GIF of a stabilised Patti:

[IMGw=800]http://i.imgur.com/YyEqJsk.gif[/IMGw]

(From reddit.)



(ETA: I may be going out on a limb here, but it looks like a bloke in a gorilla suit to me.)
 
Last edited:
Is Pattie a Muslim Sasquatch woman (Sasquaw?!?) with a veil on? Cuz it can't be a dude in a suit with a ski mask on.
 
Last edited:
AlaskaBushPilot said:
Very serious investigators. A dog, a gun, and look what expert trackers. Don't those tracks look amateurish?
Click to expand...

Who would go to the trouble to fake something that is so obviously fake?
Therefore, they must be real..


Green got all blustery when confronted with the Wallace cloggers, declaring " Do you think I would be stupid enough to fall for that? "

Well.... Yes..
 
John Nowak said:
And where would an orca hide anyway? It's not like they can just dive underwater or something.

I'm pretty sure one of the footers on this very forum said that there were no good photographs of Bigfoot because they are only visible for "a second or so." Crimeny. That's more air time than a sea lion will give you.

[qimg]https://bsccollateral.smugmug.com/By-Year/2010/i-ZmW4M5g/1/L/20100318%20103030-L.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Are you sure that's not Nessie or Champ? I mean, you might have forgotten that you took that picture in Scotland. Nessie has that effect on some people.

BTW Bill Munns was on Coast to Coast tonight and he is STILL BUTTHURT about that spanking we gave him so many years ago. He gave us a shout-out for being closed-minded skeptic meanies. I got quite a few chuckles out of it.
 
Apology said:
Are you sure that's not Nessie or Champ? I mean, you might have forgotten that you took that picture in Scotland. Nessie has that effect on some people.
Click to expand...

Nah, haven't been to Scotland. That was Kangaroo Island, in Australia.

Granted, it's not a razor-sharp image but it's identifiably a sea lion, and not, say, a seal (although that is a matter of a pinniped). Also, note that the bottom fin is sharper than the upper fin, because the animal is turning and you get speed blurring on the fastest moving parts of the animal. I've never noticed that effect on a Bigfoot picture, which mostly just seem to be out of focus.
 
Bob Heironimus trying to show people that he was the man in the "suit"

IGjw4wY.jpg
 
OntarioSquatch said:
Bob Heironimus trying to show people that he was the man in the "suit"

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/IGjw4wY.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

You need the original moth-bitten monkeysuit to do a proper re-creation, and that thing's long gone.

Doesn't matter though as the world knows it's a guy in a suit.

The non footie world, that is.
 
Last edited:
The point is that even with today's superior design and technology, they can't re-create her. Look how flat the breasts are.
 
That's like seeing the Earth from space and saying it looks flat because the truth about the Earth being round would be too hard to accept for some deep and unknown psychological reason.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
The point is that even with today's superior design and technology, they can't re-create her. Look how flat the breasts are.
Click to expand...

What a crock. Just because this particular attempt has a few differences doesn't mean they "can't recreate it". The PGF is a ridiculous joke.

The worst part is the ludicrous discrepancies between what the PGF implies and what the campfire stories imply.

On the one hand we have a monster of incredible size and strengths, capable of bounds of 60 feet, effortless pig tossing, supernatural stealth and virtual invisibility, barring the odd blurry glimpse; never seen long enough to take a decent picture; leaving no scat or hair, no decent tracks, no dead bodies, etc.


On the other hand, we have a film, shot by a man on his first attempt with a rented camera, of a sasquaw casually strolling along, with no apparent apprehension of the dude filming. "She" turns around, has a look, and moseys on like nothing weird is happening.

This suggests a clear choice between gaming and stupid gullibility on the part of the bleevers. Not much wiggle room there.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
The point is that even with today's superior design and technology, they can't re-create her. Look how flat the breasts are.
Click to expand...
You've been shown time and again that equal, if not better monkey suits pre-date the pattysuit by decades. Your refusal to acknowledge that is intellectually dishonest, but par for the course.

At any rate, there is no monkey to match that monkeysuit movie in the Bluff Creek ecosystem, in the natural history of North America, or in the fossil record of North America. In other words, what many footers consider he best evidence for footie, the pgf, is just another campfire story that the world passed by nearly fifty years ago. Another footer fail I'm afraid.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
That's like seeing the Earth from space and saying it looks flat because the truth about the Earth being round would be too hard to accept for some deep and unknown psychological reason.
Click to expand...

No, it's acknowledging that one monkeysuit is as good as the next given that none represent an actual North American ape, as there is no such thing, other than us.
 
Resume said:
You've been shown time and again that equal, if not better monkey suits pre-date the pattysuit by decades. Your refusal to acknowledge that is intellectually dishonest, but par for the course.
Click to expand...

I've seen nearly every suit that's ever been discussed here and it's clear to me that Patty isn't a suit.

Maurice Ledifficile said:
On the one hand we have a monster of incredible size and strengths, capable of bounds of 60 feet, effortless pig tossing, supernatural stealth and virtual invisibility, barring the odd blurry glimpse; never seen long enough to take a decent picture; leaving no scat or hair, no decent tracks, no dead bodies, etc.
Click to expand...

Out of thousands of reports, you cherry-pick the ones that are hard to believe. If you take the time to read what Bigfoot reports are usually like, you'll see that they're actually much less eventful than the PGF.

LTC8K6 said:
If only we could have seen Patty that well...
Click to expand...

Some of the frames I've posted have been pretty close. I've noticed that the clearer the quality is, the more real she looks.
 
Last edited:
OntarioSquatch said:
I've seen nearly every suit that's ever been discussed here and it's clear to me that Patty isn't a suit.
Click to expand...
Then you need glasses, and remedial courses in logic and psychology, covering logical fallacies, cognitive errors and biases. Busy beaver you'll be.

Out of thousands of reports, you cherry-pick the ones that are hard to believe. If you take the time to read what Bigfoot reports are usually like, you'll see that they're actually much less eventful than the PGF.
Click to expand...
Reports are GiGo: garbage in, garbage out. Unverifiable, unrepeatable, unfalsifiable, and dismissable. Useless.

Some of the frames I've posted have been pretty close. I've noticed that the clearer the quality, the more real she looks.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's called confirmation bias.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom