Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 5

[eerok]

People can sometimes be afraid of what they love.

People can sometimes refuse to deal with reality in order to sustain a cherished fantasy.

People can sometimes confuse the memory of an experience for what they wanted to have happened.

People can sometimes be fooled by sketchy fraudsters like Patterson.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

The point is that even with today's superior design and technology, they can't re-create her. Look how flat the breasts are.

As far as I'm aware, the undertaking of that suit wasn't done by NASA or anything, it was done by Philip Morris, so I'm unsure why our advancement in technology would matter one iota. Also, it's interesting that you mention the flat breasts, as though nothing of the sort exists naturally. Unless you go out with a page 3 model from the British tabloids then surely you'd realize that Patty's unmoving breasts that appear partway down her chest aren't natural, either.

 

[Monza]

So a guy with a dubious past decides to shoot a bigfoot movie. He has a friend dress up in an Indian costume but they don't have a bigfoot costume for this bigfoot movie. Later they are out not far from a logging road in an area frequented by a bigfoot track hoaxer. Without trying, they stumble upon a real bigfoot and shoot a few seconds of footage. When they get back home, the guy parades the film around like PT Barnum complete with an actor portraying his sidekick. The original film is then lost. Attempting to gather more evidence of bigfoot, they guy tries to return to the original location but misses it by 8000 miles.

Seems legit.

 

[comncents]

They're intelligent, paranoid and extremely stealthy, but not invisible. Clear and up close sightings are extremely rare and 99% of the time they happen inside a forest and don't allow for people to get any kind of good footage. It usually happens very quickly and witnesses with no experience are usually too shocked to worry about getting pictures or video. If it happened frequently enough, we would probably have more footage like the PGF.



One or two reports of Bigfoot doing something unique doesn't necesarily mean they're doing it. What if those several reports are hoaxes?

So based upon "facts" you state above, 99% could be written off as mistaken identities since they happen so fast...and the other 1% describe things that are too ridiculous to believe???? So we're done here, right?

 

[Pacal]

Not true.

ETA: If it is, please link to any published study that proves there isn't Sasquatch in North America.

Not this philosophical absurdity again. You do know, I hope, that you can't "prove" a negative. For example you can't prove I didn't see the flying purple people eater materialize in my living room and eat the sofa and then vanish in a puff of smoke leaving the sofa behind.

This is a common technique of trying to reverse the onus. Sorry but it is not the responsibility of skeptics to prove that Bigfoot does not exist, (An impossibility.), but it is the responsibility of those who make the positive claim Bigfoot exists to prove he does.

So far they have completely failed.

 

[HarryHenderson]

So a guy with a dubious past decides to shoot a bigfoot movie. He has a friend dress up in an Indian costume but they don't have a bigfoot costume for this bigfoot movie. Later they are out not far from a logging road in an area frequented by a bigfoot track hoaxer. Without trying, they stumble upon a real bigfoot and shoot a few seconds of footage. When they get back home, the guy parades the film around like PT Barnum complete with an actor portraying his sidekick. The original film is then lost. Attempting to gather more evidence of bigfoot, they guy tries to return to the original location but misses it by 8000 miles.

Seems legit.

Roger Patterson was a genius in creating a whole new brand of 'wishful thinking'.

 

[mgidm86]

As far as I know, there is no scientific consensus on the existence of Bigfoot. Science doesn't focus on negatives.

I'm sure there will be a consensus once a body is brought in, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot#Scientific_view

This is as far as I'm going with this, and I believe scientist feel the same way...

The evidence that does exist supporting the survival of such a large, prehistoric ape-like creature has been attributed to hoaxes or delusion rather than to sightings of a genuine creature.[7] In a 1996 USA Today article, Washington State zoologist John Crane said, "There is no such thing as Bigfoot. No data other than material that's clearly been fabricated has ever been presented."[90] In addition, scientists cite the fact that Bigfoot is alleged to live in regions unusual for a large, nonhuman primate,...

Mainstream scientists do not consider the subject of Bigfoot an area of credible science[313] and there have been a limited number of formal scientific studies of Bigfoot.


Evidence such as the 1967 Patterson–Gimlin film has provided "no supportive data of any scientific value".[314]

As with other proposed megafauna cryptids, climate and food supply issues would make such a creature's survival in reported habitats unlikely.[315] Great apes have not been found in the fossil record in the Americas, and no Bigfoot remains are known to have been found. The breeding population of such an animal would be so large that it would account for many more purported sightings than currently occur, making the existence of such an animal an almost certain impossibility.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigfoot#Scientific_view

This is as far as I'm going with this, and I believe scientist feel the same way...

Expect OS to totally ignore this and simply keep on truckin'.

 

[William Parcher]

There was a time in the past when the JREF PGF thread was really about the PGF.

It isn't anymore.

 

[Resume]

There was a time in the past when the JREF PGF thread was really about the PGF.

It isn't anymore.

It's a fuzzy film of a guy in a monkey suit, made by a shady, shifty fellow who announced he was going to make a monkey movie. Unless there's some new intel about the monkey suit, the guy, the shifty fellow, or fuzziness, I don't know what's left to discuss.

 

[William Parcher]

It's a fuzzy film of a guy in a monkey suit, made by a shady, shifty fellow who announced he was going to make a monkey movie. Unless there's some new intel about the monkey suit, the guy, the shifty fellow, or fuzziness, I don't know what's left to discuss.

Maybe you are too new here to understand. A member for 5 years only. We used to talk about the PGF as being a hoax film instead of talking about it as a hoax film that should never be discussed because it is a hoax film.

 

[Resume]

Maybe you are too new here to understand. A member for 5 years only.

Too new to understand what, exactly?

We used to talk about the PGF as being a hoax film instead of talking about it as a hoax film that should never be discussed because it is a hoax film.

Yes, yes, it's a film of a guy in a monkey suit. I knew this way back when it first came out and I was just a young-un. It can be discussed until the footies come home, but I can't see how derails are avoidable given the fact there isn't much new to talk about. Unless you have something.

Do you?

 

[William Parcher]

We used to talk about the PGF and post frames from it and talk some more. A gif would pop up from the promoters and we would talk some more. There was active banter going on between PGF belief and PGF skepticism.

That doesn't happen here anymore. It has changed. Something significant has changed. The PGF thread used to be the most popular Bigfoot thread on JREF. It isn't anymore.

 

[Resume]

We used to talk about the PGF and post frames from it and talk some more. A gif would pop up from the promoters and we would talk some more. There was active banter going on between PGF belief and PGF skepticism.

That doesn't happen here anymore. It has changed. Something significant has changed. The PGF thread used to be the most popular Bigfoot thread on JREF. It isn't anymore.

Many proponents pimp the PGF as their best evidence, yet few come here to promote or even defend it as of late. Is this indicative of a lack of confidence in the PGF as good evidence, or a lack of confidence in proponents who might defend it?

If the PGF is dying as a symbol, isn't bigfootery terminal as well? It doesn't seem possible on the surface, but . . .

 

[William Parcher]

Too new to understand what, exactly?

We used to post frames (or little gifs) from the PGF and talk about those as being the elements from which the authenticity or fabrication could be derived. It was how arguments were created and defended or attacked. Now it's simply that the PGF is fake and you can skip all of that old frame-by-frame stuff.

Yes, yes, it's a film of a guy in a monkey suit. I knew this way back when it first came out and I was just a young-un. It can be discussed until the footies come home, but I can't see how derails are avoidable given the fact there isn't much new to talk about. Unless you have something.

Do you?

My newest thing on the PGF is interest in the specific very shiny black synthetic fur material and how it created illusions of musculature and overall form.

 

[Resume]

My newest thing on the PGF is interest in the specific very shiny black synthetic fur material and how it created illusions of musculature and overall form.

Well, good luck with that. I'm not being flip, either.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

Patty from Roger's view

The full sized version http://i.imgur.com/35IE56G.jpg

Patty up close

]

Cibachrome scan from Bill Munns

One of the early frames that clearly shows the individual glutes

Another early frame

One of the later frames

 

[Resume]

Patty from Roger's view

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/arQ6oH2.jpg[/qimg]
The full sized version http://i.imgur.com/35IE56G.jpg

Patty up close
[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/nlHDRdP.jpg[/qimg]]

Cibachrome scan from Bill Munns

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/jBSsSW1.png[/qimg]


One of the early frames that clearly shows the individual glutes

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/gGKnwD6.jpg[/qimg]

Another early frame

[qimg]http://i1079.photobucket.com/albums/w501/FireUpload/Bigfoot/notasuit2.jpg[/qimg]

One of the later frames

[qimg]http://i1079.photobucket.com/albums/w501/FireUpload/Bigfoot/PGF/patterson-stills-group-one-169_zps03af9703.jpg[/qimg]

Why do you think, what's your best explanation for the bald fact that there is nothing in the North American fossil record, no biological entity in the natural history of North America that matches the guy in the suit the pattysuit the thing in the PGF.? Not one thing that is even close to a 9-ft monkey? Where are the animals that match? **** the plural, how about just one?

 

[LTC8K6]

Wow! What great new PGF stills!

Oh wait, it's only 356th time I've seen them.

Why would Munns need to scan the Cibachromes again?

The Cibachromes really show what a drunken patchwork job the suit is...

 

[Drewbot]

Patty from Roger's view

Patty, Roger and Bob, from the baby in the Woods viewpoint:

I love how they took the black image blob over the mouth in the full-frame, and in the Cibachrome, turned it into a smile.
The black image blob is clearly visible in the full frame right over where the imaginary mouth-line is.