Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[RayG]

I also contend that a person presently employed in the motion picture industry has a much greater ability to build a convincing suit than a rodeo rider in 1967.

We shouldn't underestimate human ingenuity either. Maybe I shouldn't, but I tend to lump people who claim that Patterson couldn't possibly have pulled off a hoax, in with those that claim THIS couldn't have been created by humans:

We don't want to pre-judge, do we?

No, but we also shouldn't pass Patterson off as a unimaginative rodeo rider.

If a dog has a square....rectum..., he'll.....defecate....bricks.

You know what they say about sticking a round peg in a square hole... or is that square peg in a round hole??

RayG

 

[tube]

When I say it, it's dialogue and nothing more. It's a possibility. The film is going to leave us with plenty of unanswerable questions, to talk about.

I'm somewhat surprised you are characterizing your statements as "possibilities", that are "dialogue and nothing more", because that sounds to me like "fiction" and not science.

Why should we take your "possibilities" more seriously than, say, Eric Beckjord's notion that we can see a tampon string coming out of "Patty"?

Why should I take the "possibility" of scars, boils, and eye infections more seriously than Beckjord's wormhole traveling shape-shifter?

You did not answer my question in your last post either: Have you previously asserted that the film subject's pupils are dilated?

 

[bruto]

LAL says...If I were to discover, say, a large ruby and later sold fabrications, the original ruby wouldn't suddenly become fake. It would still be a large ruby.

Here is a part of the problem in a nutshell. While what you say is true, it is predicated on your knowing in a very real and presumably testable way that the original ruby was real. But how about putting it a different way?

If I sold you what looks convincingly like a large ruby, and you had accepted it on faith without assaying it, and then later I were discovered selling fabrications, are you suggesting that you would still believe your ruby genuine on faith and without more critical examination?

 

[LTC8K6]

Somewhere earlier in this thread or one of the others, I suggested that Beckjord's ideas more closely matched the "evidence" of bigfoot.

 

[LTC8K6]

Quoting myself:

Well, which is closer to matching all of the varied reports of sasquatch behaviors and abilities?

A - an unknown large bipedal hominid/primate

B - a shapeshifting interdimensional entity

I submit that B is the closer match.

 

[LTC8K6]

LAL says...If I were to discover, say, a large ruby and later sold fabrications, the original ruby wouldn't suddenly become fake. It would still be a large ruby.

The people who bought the fakes would certainly be suspicious of Lu's original ruby though, as would others. They would question the original discovery. They should question it.

 

[Huntster]

...I have to wonder why anyone would even bother to write such a ridiculous thing.

Well, tell us:

Why are you bothering with it?

 

[Huntster]

Unless I'm very much mistaken, canine fecal matter is rarely employed as construction material, so your hypothesis would seem to be somewhat flawed.

Many theories and ideologies have been "constructed" out of matter very much like canine fecal matter.

 

[Huntster]

...been too busy to bother with any suit-making (other than the one I built over Halloween weekend). When I get a break in the schedule I will give it a try though....

I understand. I try to stay busy, too. I have way too much to do to even think about building a sasquatch suit.

Yet, I'm reading over and over and over again how easy it is.

I've seen photos of several that were submitted as the real thing, but were obvious hoaxes (like the Marx suit portrayed in this thread).

Even the BBC reproduction of the Patterson film was a joke.

There's a lot of talk about the Patterson suit. I've yet to see it's match; even from Hollywood.

...The PG film shows all of the flaws that ONLY a suit produces. The back of the neck separates from the head/helmet when Heironimus turns....

Funny, I haven't seen that.

...The thigh pad juts out as he bends forward....

Didn't notice that, either.

...The seams around the butt pads that are an exact match for those used by John Chambers...

Hmm. Didn't notice that, either.

...Not to mention the floppy foot connected to the suit that slides back and forth and the shoulder pad that runs straight across the shoulder instead of tapering down as a normal muscle would....

Well. With so many flaws, the suit is getting even easier to build, isn't it?

So.........I'm very patient. I'll wait.

Let's see someone do it again.

 

[Huntster]

It's rather useless to discuss PGF with some footers. They stick to what can only be defined as false beliefs, such as how hard it would be to make a Patty suit even with today's FX tech, etc. etc. etc....

So, again, if it is so easy to do, how come it hasn't been reproduced?

Why did the BBC attempt to reproduce the PG film turn into such a joke?

 

[Huntster]

We shouldn't underestimate human ingenuity either. Maybe I shouldn't, but I tend to lump people who claim that Patterson couldn't possibly have pulled off a hoax, in with those that claim THIS couldn't have been created by humans:...

How many humans? At what cost? What skills do those humans have? After constructing such a piece of art, did they later invest money in a UFO search? Were others at the site when it was constructed who testified (then and 40 years later) that their partner built it, or that he saw a UFO do it?

Have thousands of other, unrelated people testified that they have seen UFO's create crop circles?

 

[Huntster]

Somewhere earlier in this thread or one of the others, I suggested that Beckjord's ideas more closely matched the "evidence" of bigfoot.

Then perhap's you're discussing this phenomenon at the wrong forum.

Go here. Maybe you'll feel more at home.

 

[Starrman]

How many humans? At what cost? What skills do those humans have? After constructing such a piece of art, did they later invest money in a UFO search? Were others at the site when it was constructed who testified (then and 40 years later) that their partner built it, or that he saw a UFO do it?

Have thousands of other, unrelated people testified that they have seen UFO's create crop circles?

I don't think I could have drawn a more apt comparison of the UFO and Bigfoot myths if I tried. The irony in it coming from you is priceless!

How many nickels do I owe you so far?

The answer to your question is 'yes' to many of the facets of UFO lore. Maybe not 'yes' to that particular circle, but yes, things like that happen all the time in UFOlogy...

 

[M.K.Davis]

When I say it, it's dialogue and nothing more. It's a possibility. The film is going to leave us with plenty of unanswerable questions, to talk about.

I'm somewhat surprised you are characterizing your statements as "possibilities", that are "dialogue and nothing more", because that sounds to me like "fiction" and not science.

Why should we take your "possibilities" more seriously than, say, Eric Beckjord's notion that we can see a tampon string coming out of "Patty"?

Why should I take the "possibility" of scars, boils, and eye infections more seriously than Beckjord's wormhole traveling shape-shifter?

You did not answer my question in your last post either: Have you previously asserted that the film subject's pupils are dilated?

Let me ask you this. Did you assert that Don Monroe casted his own hand in the cave in Idaho, and that you could tell because you saw his thumb missing, and that you were going to expose him? M.K.

 

[RayG]

How many humans? At what cost? What skills do those humans have? After constructing such a piece of art, did they later invest money in a UFO search? Were others at the site when it was constructed who testified (then and 40 years later) that their partner built it, or that he saw a UFO do it?

Have thousands of other, unrelated people testified that they have seen UFO's create crop circles?

Bottom line, it WAS created by humans.

RayG

 

[tube]

When I say it, it's dialogue and nothing more. It's a possibility. The film is going to leave us with plenty of unanswerable questions, to talk about.

Let me ask you this. Did you assert that Don Monroe casted his own hand in the cave in Idaho, and that you could tell because you saw his thumb missing, and that you were going to expose him? M.K.

Marlon; I must say, your willingness to "come on board" a forum that includes individuals who may not appreciate your ideas takes courage. But your unwillingness to answer direct, unambiguous questions is spineless.

Why are you resorting to counterattack? Are your claims not on solid ground?

 

[Correa Neto]

So, again, if it is so easy to do, how come it hasn't been reproduced?

Why did the BBC attempt to reproduce the PG film turn into such a joke?

Such a joke?

To me, it looks more like a real bigfoot (if such a thing really exists) than Patty.

What about adimiting that Patty-like costumes can be -and were- made at least since the 40s?

And that there are many flaws in the reasonings that try to defend such monkey costumes could not have been created back in the 60's?

 

[delphi_ote]

Looks to me like they started measuring from underground...

 

[LTC8K6]

http://us.share.geocities.com/abercrombiedrone/bf9.jpg

A high res frame from the P/G film. I haven't seen it before. Not sure what they were circling. Maybe it originated with Beckjord?

 

[bruto]

http://us.share.geocities.com/abercrombiedrone/bf9.jpg

A high res frame from the P/G film. I haven't seen it before. Not sure what they were circling. Maybe it originated with Beckjord?

Why, it's Mr. Big and the kids, clear as day! But they missed Uncle George and cousin Ernie. Once you start circling, the others are obvious. The woods are full of them.