Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Huntster]

Again with the independant witness snapped some photos mularkey?? Is that all it takes Fudd? Cripes!! Rack your brain Fudster....is it not possible that this independant witness was as fooled by P & G as rank-n-file Bigfoot Fan?

Possible? Yup. Likely? Not in my opinion, especially after the Titmus investigation.

His photos do not alter the possibility that the footprints he snapped weren't hoaxed regardless of how much you'd like to think so.

Funny how skeptics see possibilities only as possibilities of hoaxes, and not the possibility of the existence of this species.

That is right.......Kill one....kill one and show us Evuhhhhl skeptics what's been leaving all these footprints.Show us Evuhhhhhl skeptics the subject of these many hundreds of eyewitness accounts. Show us something other than arse casts,snapped branches,footprints and vague might be an animal but than again might be a guy in silly suit films.

Show us this and we will indeed dine on our crow robustly.

I've said that in the unlikely event I get a shot, I'll take it.

Don't show us this and continue to parade before us uselessly vague,ambiguous and inconclusive snippets of half asssed evidence and of course we will continue to scoff and laugh.........robustly!!

Enjoy your laugh.

The clock reads triple zeros Fudley....time's up....show us the damn monkey already!!

Sorry. Time's not up. There's no time limit.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Take a look at this moving footage before spouting off much more.

What's new in this?....

The muscle movement in the thigh as she steps in a dip while looking backwards, as well as muscle flexing in both thighs and calfs while walking, seen now as a result of stabilizing the film.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The muscle movement in the thigh as she steps in a dip while looking backwards, as well as muscle flexing in both thighs and calfs while walking, seen now as a result of stabilizing the film.

Believers have a way of seeing things that just aren't there. What I see is a person in a costume, which bunches up at the thigh. What could be mistaken for muscle movement is merely the jiggling of the suit when the person stomps. There is still not crack and one can see lines where the seams are around the waistline and where the thighs begin, outlining a diaper-shape around the buttocks.

But, you see bigfoot.

 

[kitakaze]

Just a couple of frank admissions I'd like to toss in to the converstation- One being that no matter how hard I try, when I look at the PGF I have a difficult time seeing a bloke in a suit and the other being that when I realize how useless that opinion is in relation to the overall question of whether sasquatches might be real animals or not I feel a certain amount of relief when this thread falls down the line. Oh yeah, and I wonder if Gimlin will go to his grave maintaining his current position on the matter, just like Patterson did.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

No one could make a suit like that in 1967 !



How about 1949 ?

 

[thaiboxerken]

I don't think it matters, if Gimlin says "it was a joke", bigfooters will still believe that the film shows a real sasquatch.

 

[kitakaze]

No one could make a suit like that in 1967 !



How about 1949 ?

[qimg]http://www.intergate.com/~gregorygatz/images/buttcomp.gif[/qimg]

Diogenes, sorry if I missed the boat somewhere but where did you get that photo? That's a pretty interesting comparison. I've seen lots of Dfoot's comparisons but I don't think I've seen one quite like that.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Just a couple of frank admissions I'd like to toss in to the converstation- One being that no matter how hard I try, when I look at the PGF I have a difficult time seeing a bloke in a suit and the other being that when I realize how useless that opinion is in relation to the overall question of whether sasquatches might be real animals or not I feel a certain amount of relief when this thread falls down the line. Oh yeah, and I wonder if Gimlin will go to his grave maintaining his current position on the matter, just like Patterson did.

Have you looked at my ' Arms ' thread over at BFF..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=12993


Apeman went to great length to correlate lumps to actual muscles, but
he never accounted for the shape..

Muscles don't ' circle ' the limbs of any animal on earth.. They run longitudinally..

Even Patty's upper thigh has a circular ' padding look ..

While some pictures of gorillas were shown with hair lines in the ' diaper ' area, the shape of the lumps just don't match real life anatomy..

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Diogenes, sorry if I missed the boat somewhere but where did you get that photo? That's a pretty interesting comparison. I've seen lots of Dfoot's comparisons but I don't think I've seen one quite like that.

It was posted in the ' Walas ' thread over at BFF... I'll dig up the link for you..

We like to call it ' Patty's Butt Twin '..

The Thread...

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8446

Interesting to see Dfoot arguing ' against ' the case for a costume ...


Here is the post where Chris posted the picture, but it seems to be gone now.
That picture has got to make Patty fans uncomfortable..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=8446&view=findpost&p=169765

It was a suit made for the movie " Africa Screams "..

 

[kitakaze]

Believers have a way of seeing things that just aren't there. What I see is a person in a costume, which bunches up at the thigh. What could be mistaken for muscle movement is merely the jiggling of the suit when the person stomps. There is still not crack and one can see lines where the seams are around the waistline and where the thighs begin, outlining a diaper-shape around the buttocks.

But, you see bigfoot.

You know, Ken, speaking from the safety of the opinion of the majority doesn't make your comments anymore intelligent. The PGF is certainly highly in doubt of depicting something other than a man in a costume but the nature of the film leaves your comments on it as much in the realm of belief as Huntster's. I'm not a believer and I'll readily admit my opinion on the film being a problem of perception. You don't seem as forthcoming with a similar admission.

 

[kitakaze]

Have you looked at my ' Arms ' thread over at BFF..

Yes, I remember that. Very interesting but I remember at the time thinking how if the effect was more obvious throughout the film it would have been more compelling.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You know, Ken, speaking from the safety of the opinion of the majority doesn't make your comments anymore intelligent.

But speaking from the safety of reality does. Sasquatch do not exist, there is no credible evidence of sasquatch. The guy in the film is wearing a costume.

'm not a believer and I'll readily admit my opinion on the film being a problem of perception. You don't seem as forthcoming with a similar admission.

That's because my perception is the correct one, for reasons outlined in the thread.

 

[kitakaze]

It was posted in the ' Walas ' thread over at BFF... I'll dig up the link for you..

We like to call it ' Patty's Butt Twin '..

The Thread...

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8446

Interesting to see Dfoot arguing ' against ' the case for a costume ...


Here is the post where Chris posted the picture, but it seems to be gone now.
That picture has got to make Patty fans uncomfortable..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=8446&view=findpost&p=169765

It was a suit made for the movie " Africa Screams "..

Thank you very much. That's certainly high on the list of things to give one pause. I should brush up as I've all but ignored the BFF lately.

 

[Starthinker]

It was posted in the ' Walas ' thread over at BFF... I'll dig up the link for you..

We like to call it ' Patty's Butt Twin '..

The Thread...

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=8446

Interesting to see Dfoot arguing ' against ' the case for a costume ...


Here is the post where Chris posted the picture, but it seems to be gone now.
That picture has got to make Patty fans uncomfortable..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=8446&view=findpost&p=169765

It was a suit made for the movie " Africa Screams "..

The Abbot and Costello move? I have that on DVD. I may have to take some screen shots myself.

eta: If this turns out to be a valid comparison I think it would deserve it's own thread. It could really shake things up.

 

[kitakaze]

But speaking from the safety of reality does. Sasquatch do not exist, there is no credible evidence of sasquatch. The guy in the film is wearing a costume.



That's because my perception is the correct one, for reasons outlined in the thread.

Ken, when you figure out the difference between highly unlikely, highly in doubt, and unproven as opposed to non-existent you'll be taken much more seriously. (Well, it'll be a start.)

 

[thaiboxerken]

When you figure out the difference between mythical creatures and real ones, I'll take you more seriously as well.

 

[kitakaze]

I don't recall having a problem with the distinction, care to elaborate?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The Abbot and Costello move? I have that on DVD. I may have to take some screen shots myself.

eta: If this turns out to be a valid comparison I think it would deserve it's own thread. It could really shake things up.

I went through the DVD myself.. I wasn't able to match up any more than the butt..

Contrary to the ' unfakeable detail ' that PGF'ers see, I see a patched together furry suit...

The butt just seems like too much of a coincidence to me..

Believers say the Gemora suit was obviously modeled after the real thing;
but there is no reason for Patty's butt to look like a gorilla's, since she is bipedal..

I've pointed this out to no avail..


Hey, we don't need a new thread! We need to keep this one alive !!

 

[kitakaze]

The butt just seems like too much of a coincidence to me..

Under my previously stated perception problem I always kinda just saw a big, fat, lardy bum. But then I saw your comp and have another of many reasons to deal with that perception problem.

Hey, we don't need a new thread! We need to keep this one alive !!

Can we just let it get to a hundred pages, have a little party, and then just link to it a lot? Edited for potty mouth.

 

[Huntster]

Believers have a way of seeing things that just aren't there.......

This from the man who sees "seams".

Of course, he's "always right". (See sig lines below.............)