Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LTC8K6]

P/G were specifically told to go to Bluff Creek. They got a phone call. No blundering or luck involved.

 

[Correa Neto]

Are you suggesting the Malaysian stuff is just a way to make money???

Heretic skeptic!!!!

edited to add "the Malaysian stuff "

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/larson.htm

Hmmmm......possible toe dragging.....no claws either....

 

[Huntster]

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/larson.htm

Hmmmm......possible toe dragging.....no claws either....

Californicated bears. Hiding too long in marijuana patches; can't walk well.

Bite their toenails, too, I see.................

 

[Z]

Californicated bears. Hiding too long in marijuana patches; can't walk well.

Bite their toenails, too, I see.................

Now that was funny!

 

[Huntster]

Now that was funny!

Yeah.

Lots of "funny" around here.

 

[Dfoot]

No, it's not. You don't give a damn.



Yeah, right.

You couldn't make a suit in motion any better than Marx. That's why you pulled this stunt instead.

What a waste.



I can't believe this.



This coming from a man who has been lying to numerous people for months, and who created a fake photo?

What do you know about "the truth"?

I'm not Rene Dahinden, and you're not a sage.

I don't live in a tin shack. I don't hunt sasquatches. I've been married once, for 30 years, and we're still married.

I get mad when people lie to me, not when they ask me valid questions.



And, obviously, we won't find one waiting for a supposed Hollywood stunt man to try to build a suit that can move like the PG film subject, either.

Face the truth?

Good advice. Try it yourself. Here's the truth:

You're a liar.

Whew... keep that up and I might begin to think that your emotions are clouding your ability to see what's on the film.

Last night it happened again. I was on a film set and the "jutting thigh pad" occurred. We'd just dragged a guy behind a horse and he was wearing his Cooper pants (hockey pads). They stuck out and formed a circular edge around the thigh from beneath his tight pants in the fight scene we did next. We had to ask him to take them off so they wouldn't be seen by the camera.

Even in the deliberately deceptive resolution of the PG film we can still see the thigh pad under the suit. There is no getting around this. To learn about this simply perform some of the experiments that I showed you over at BFF. Unless you actually do these kinds of things then you have no clue as to what you are talking about.

I've told you that I'm busy working. I'd love to spend time learning to build a suit by experimenting with one. The simple Halloween suit I made proved to me how it's not as difficult as one would think. You only need to understand a few things first.

But listen yourself now... this is an example of why I had to check out the ability of some of the folks demanding that I (a guy who is not a suit maker) attempt to build a suit along the lines of a John Chambers' 1967 apeman special.

The photo below has various images of the Halloween suit at Bluff creek AND the image of the Patty from the "horrible deception test" next to the Patty from the film. Probably too small for people to see, but that's as large as I know how to make them here.

Well... at least the Halloween suit pics are in focus.

Would a stupid Halloween Wookie with a little latex added and hair trimmed up pass for a Sasquatch? Yes. Is this a perfect duplication of Patty? No. But it's just as good.

Patty had no film to try to match. Whatever Chambers or Patterson came up with BECAME the perfect Bigfoot. Therefore we need to imitate it - I can see that. Yet... will that suffice? Based on my experiment I'd have to say "no way".

What I've shown is that even if Mrs. Chambers gave me photos of John mixing and matching parts from old Star Trek faces and gorilla suits while building Patty, I'd still be told "That's not even close". If we find a similar location and use a similar suit in similar blurred motion we'll be told, "Nowhere near Patty".

What we are seeing has nothing to do with anyone's ability to build a suit or not. It has everything to do with psychology.

Yes, we can make films of all sorts of creatures - including each person's idea of what a Sasquatch should look like. Good and bad ones. What we can't seem to do is film a real one. So far, no one has done that. All of the Bigfoot films are faked that I've seen.

- Dfoot

 

[Correa Neto]

Dfoot, do think this issue is really worthy the time and bandwith you are spending?

IMHO, you've already proved your point regarding the bias and analisys capability of some PGFfers. This particular goal was reached, move on and leave the whiners behind.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yes, dfoot you have made your point. No reason to waste any more time explaining it, imo.

Well, the believers still have to show that it could not be a man in a suit, imo.

The most likely explanation for what is seen in the PGF is that it is a guy in a suit.

A new, large, bipedal primate is not the most likely explanation.

So far, the most likely explanation for the PGF has not been eliminated.

 

[Dfoot]

Dfoot, do think this issue is really worthy the time and bandwith you are spending?

IMHO, you've already proved your point regarding the bias and analisys capability of some PGFfers. This particular goal was reached, move on and leave the whiners behind.

I won't always have time to post, but...

The thing is that it's very easy to simply click a mouse and post a response or a photo comp whenever I check my email at anytime during the day. A few have actually listened to what I've said, so that's worth it. It's no different than the efforts made by THE AMAZING RANDI... it's just done by a few mouse clicks instead of the efforts he's put forth.

The Halloween suit I made for Halloween in mere hours. It just turned into a curious experiment after that.

It's worth a tiny effort if it alerts a few to some things. Plus, it's just plain interesting to watch how the mind perceives things when an intricate belief system has been formed around something false.

I've also learned that dogs steal hats off sleeping Bigfoots. That's at least one contribution to research I've been able to make.

You prove it's not true.

- Dfoot

 

[Huntster]

Yes, dfoot you have made your point. No reason to waste any more time explaining it, imo.

Well, the believers still have to show that it could not be a man in a suit, imo.....

Yup. And the skeptics still have to show that it was a man in a suit.

...The most likely explanation for what is seen in the PGF is that it is a guy in a suit....

You've "graduated" from evidence to "most likely explanation"?

 

[Huntster]

Whew... keep that up and I might begin to think that your emotions are clouding your ability to see what's on the film.....

My emotions have little effect on my eyesight, although on occasion, I can get pissed off enough so that things get a reddish hue.

...But listen yourself now... this is an example of why I had to check out the ability of some of the folks demanding that I (a guy who is not a suit maker) attempt to build a suit along the lines of a John Chambers' 1967 apeman special....

Someone demanded that you build a suit? Funny, I don't remember that. I would have told them that I didn't have the time, but you've said so often that it would be a "piece of cake", that perhaps you felt obligated.

Perhaps you should have explained that it really is a bit more than a piece of cake, and that you don't have the time for it. I think most folks would understand. I certainly would have.

Instead, you chose to lead people on for months, allowing them to believe that you were building a suit that you would videotape. Then you benevolently slipped in a photo-shopped version of the Patterson subject itself, knowing that we would critique the minor changes that you made, so that we could be saved from our passion.

Wow! I don't think I've had someone so concerned for my welfare like that for years. Imagine, lying in order to save someone from themself!

You're truly a heck of a guy, Dfoot.

Thanks.

...Would a stupid Halloween Wookie with a little latex added and hair trimmed up pass for a Sasquatch? Yes. Is this a perfect duplication of Patty? No. But it's just as good....

Well, I don't think we can truly compare the two until the stupid Holloween Wookie moves on film.

The Patterson hoax moves.

And you, yourself, wrote that you can make yours move "if you like".

...Patty had no film to try to match. Whatever Chambers or Patterson came up with BECAME the perfect Bigfoot. Therefore we need to imitate it - I can see that. Yet... will that suffice? Based on my experiment I'd have to say "no way"....

Well, I guess we'll never know, will we?

...What I've shown is that even if Mrs. Chambers gave me photos of John mixing and matching parts from old Star Trek faces and gorilla suits while building Patty, I'd still be told "That's not even close". If we find a similar location and use a similar suit in similar blurred motion we'll be told, "Nowhere near Patty". What we are seeing has nothing to do with anyone's ability to build a suit or not. It has everything to do with psychology...

Oh, yes; I have to agree with you there, partner.

...Yes, we can make films of all sorts of creatures - including each person's idea of what a Sasquatch should look like. Good and bad ones. What we can't seem to do is film a real one. So far, no one has done that. All of the Bigfoot films are faked that I've seen....

Prove it.

 

[LTC8K6]

And the skeptics still have to show that it was a man in a suit.

No we don't. Ockhams razor. It is most likely a man in a suit.

Find something in the film that proves it cannot be a man in a suit, and you will have shifted the obligation immediately.

If the PGF was of a 6 legged pink elephant, the burden would never be put on anyone claiming it was fake. Scofftics would never be asked to prove that the 6 legged pink elephant is actually 3 guys in a costume. Elephant prints along bluff creek would do nothing to add to the credibility of the film.

 

[LTC8K6]

Huntster, Patty is often described as looking and walking exactly like a man by experts and others, including Patterson.

Why is this not taken into consideration?

 

[William Parcher]

It really does liberate the soul to abandon arguments about Bigfoot for several weeks.

If your mind ever does return to the topic, you realize that Bigfoot just isn't there... in ways that were obfuscated by the daily tit-for-tat banter with credulous believers.

The whole thing is getting uglier by the minute. The PGF is being criticized, drawn and quartered in ways that it has never before endured. The idea that Bigfoot is a real undocumented creature is progressing backwards. It's getting so ridiculous with Bigfoot belief (and much of cryptozoology), that we are all expected to unanimously lose any definition of a proposed organism that does not exist on our planet.

I am saying that there surely must be such a thing as an imagined animal that does not truly exist outside of the imagination.

Where is Bigfoot?

 

[Correa Neto]

I won't always have time to post, but...

The thing is that it's very easy to simply click a mouse and post a response or a photo comp whenever I check my email at anytime during the day. A few have actually listened to what I've said, so that's worth it. It's no different than the efforts made by THE AMAZING RANDI... it's just done by a few mouse clicks instead of the efforts he's put forth.

The Halloween suit I made for Halloween in mere hours. It just turned into a curious experiment after that.

It's worth a tiny effort if it alerts a few to some things. Plus, it's just plain interesting to watch how the mind perceives things when an intricate belief system has been formed around something false.

I've also learned that dogs steal hats off sleeping Bigfoots. That's at least one contribution to research I've been able to make.

You prove it's not true.

- Dfoot

I agree that the time spent on debunking things like PGF is well spent.

My point was regarding the personal attacks you are receiving from a certain poster. I was also personally attacked by some posters. At a single case I decided the poster was unworthy of wasting any more time and bandwidth and sent to my "ignore" list.

But individually we have our own personal ways and tolerance limits. If you think you still should answer to the ravings of certain persons prone to make empty claims, its your choice. Its your right.

Now, at a more serious level, I can prove dogs steal hats from sleeping bigfeet. There are no pictures or sighting reports of bigfeet with hats.

Uh... Wait... If the dogs steal their hats while they are sleeping, then you will never see one awaken with a hat...

It's so easy to replicate creduloid thinking...

 

[casebro]

(SNIP) Plus, it's just plain interesting to watch how the mind perceives things when an intricate belief system has been formed around something false.

I've also learned that dogs steal hats off sleeping Bigfoots. That's at least one contribution to research I've been able to make.

You prove it's not true.

- Dfoot

This pic proves what others have been saying: Bigfoot can telepathically communicate with other animals: Obviously, the Bigfoot is napping in the sun, and has ordered the dog to bring him a hat, to shade his eyes...

 

[UrsulaV]

Now, at a more serious level, I can prove dogs steal hats from sleeping bigfeet. There are no pictures or sighting reports of bigfeet with hats.

Uh... Wait... If the dogs steal their hats while they are sleeping, then you will never see one awaken with a hat...

It's so easy to replicate creduloid thinking...

This would explain why so many dogs allegedly refuse to trail a Bigfoot and become panicky--fear of retaliation for hat-theft! They know that within the furry breast of the newly-hatless Bigfoot, a desire for vengeance is burning, and only dogflesh can slake it.

You might be on to something...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

.........................................

The most likely explanation for what is seen in the PGF is that it is a guy in a suit.

A new, large, bipedal primate is not the most likely explanation.

So far, the most likely explanation for the PGF has not been eliminated.

It doesn't get any simpler than that..

 

[Correa Neto]

Hey, you can't rule out the possibility that an unknown large bipedal primate may look just like a bloke in a gorilla suit walking like a caveman from the 60's...