Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
A collection of Bigfoot movies just came out on DVD. Some are ficticious, others are documentaries. Including..
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0279919/

If this is the one I'm thinking of, I watched it at a midnight film festival, it has this really sad part where a squirrel gets hit by a car and limps off to the side of the road. This is the most compelling part of the movie, and was probably included to fill time that didn't include any Bigfoot footage.
 
Waaay too small

LTC8K6 said:
http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/handbigft/

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/bfhand/

A sasquatch hand is shown! Oh boy! We've finally got something!

This will no doubt quickly be DNA tested......
Click to expand...

I know that when you "badly" preserve tissue , it tends to retract and look smaller than original, but the skeletal work still stay the same. Now look at the hand and finger of the person holding it. This sasquash hand seems waaaaay too small for a supposed big animal. Unless they come with an excuse "this comes from a sas child".

I bet the DNA will find out either human , ape or monkey, or inconclusive.
 
IF its ever examined.
"I don't want to risk damaging the specimen" and similar excuses may be incoming...

Are footers so desperate or naïve to consider a dump deposit the right place to find a bigfoot body part?
 
LTC8K6 said:
http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/handbigft/

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/bfhand/

A sasquatch hand is shown! Oh boy! We've finally got something!

This will no doubt quickly be DNA tested......
Click to expand...


Well I checked out the links and I pretty much am 99% leaning towards chimp hand...Why?!? Two words......TOM BISCARDI...the man is a charlatan and Bullshyt artist to the nth degree. Does anyone remember his "I Captured a Bigfoot....Whoops I was lied to" shenanigans on C2C not to long ago?

Not to mention this mitt was found where again exactly? In a dump? Let's put on our whacky helmets and pretend just for the sake of argument that it was a Hairy Biped hand....What in the Holy Hassenfeffer is it doing at the dump?

Not to mention....Where's the rest of the body? Did the Squatch die at the dump,or was he chopped up somewhere else with his seperated body parts strategically placed in random dumpsites across the country? Did scavengers eat everything else but the hand? Do Bigfeet hands just fall off their owners?
Someone held onto what might be the most important cryptozoological dicovery of all time for years than one spring said..."Aaaaah,this thing stinks" and chucked in the dumpster??

Bigfoot Fan realllly should do two things,

First ask Tom Biscardi to butt out of things,he's killing your credibility,and two stop insulting your own intelligence with hands and butt casts and go out and get some decent evidence,well that is of course if you ever want anyone to take you seriously.
 
Mad Hom said:
and two stop insulting your own intelligence with hands and butt casts and go out and get some decent evidence,well that is of course if you ever want anyone to take you seriously.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear (though I don't think you were actually implying otherwise, Madness), if some lucky footer actually found a hand and came forward and presented it for study I think that would more than qualify as being some decent evidence... more like rad, to be technical. Alas, I certainly don't think we have anything resembling that in this case.
 
But what if the "lucky footer" happens to find the had at a dump?

Butt casts are not as mind-insulting as the testicle casts...
Bigfoot rolling on the mud to pick some berries... Yeah...

"Authentic" footprints associated with a hoaxer...

"Authentic" footage with fishy background...

Circunstances surrounding bigfoot "evidence" are always... Peculiar.
 
LTC8K6 said:
A few good bigfoot suits are on TV a lot now. You've got the one on the dicovery channel that they show often, and then you've got the Jack Link's commercials where guys keep messing with sasquatch.

There are several commercials, and they're pretty good.


http://www.messinwithsasquatch.com/
Click to expand...

...and hence the reason that the vintage on the PGF (1967) is held as irrefutable proof by Bigfoot Fan that Roge and Bob filmed the real McCoy. Sure suits that real can be made nowadays but NOT back in 1967 they couldn't.

Ironically it also works against they're insistence that "film" is as good as a body or DNA.

I mean if Jack Links can come up with a suit that good nowadays that they film "clearly" for 2 to 3 minute commercials than why couldn't a hoaxer come up with a convincing enough suit that they film at night,or with the focus all fargged up, or with the zoom off and still be able to reel in a Hook In Mouth Bleever.

This is why the longer this charade goes on the less and less likely it is that the stinky ape exists. Film is no longer useful as proof,unless of course it's close up and the animal is clearly flesh,blood and hair. Tampering is far to easy nowadays,people count SFX as a hobby and practice in their garages,and Photoshop is affordable enough.

Bigfoot Fan has to do one simple thing..........Kill one........that is of course..........................If they exist anywhere except in their heads!!
 
kitakaze said:
Just to be clear (though I don't think you were actually implying otherwise, Madness), if some lucky footer actually found a hand and came forward and presented it for study I think that would more than qualify as being some decent evidence... more like rad, to be technical. Alas, I certainly don't think we have anything resembling that in this case.
Click to expand...

Kitakaze I guess I'd agree with you there although I believe finding JUST a hand to be ridiculous. So while I guess you're right I find the nature of the proof to be outlandish,kind of like that dececated Yeti hand or that whacky scalp the Sherpas claimed to have.

Now if the guy or gal lopped said hand off of a dead Hairy Biped than yes...it would indeed be rad.
 
Mad Hom said:
Kitakaze I guess I'd agree with you there although I believe finding JUST a hand to be ridiculous. So while I guess you're right I find the nature of the proof to be outlandish,
Click to expand...
It certainly does call for the whacky hat. Unfortunately, I've been keeping mine in the closet stuffed between some questionable sasquatch appendages, lately.
...kind of like that dececated Yeti hand or that whacky scalp the Sherpas claimed to have.
Click to expand...
The particular hand we're talking about here looks a little more defecated than dececated.
Now if the guy or gal lopped said hand off of a dead Hairy Biped than yes...it would indeed be rad.
Click to expand...
And yet more rad if you lopped the hand off a living Hairy Biped with your trusty lightsaber after telling it you were its father in an attempt to bring it to the dark side.
 
kitakaze said:
And yet more rad if you lopped the hand off a living Hairy Biped with your trusty lightsaber after telling it you were its father in an attempt to bring it to the dark side.
Click to expand...

Well there ya go maybe this hand is actually Luke Skywalker's I mean we have just as much proof.

Think about it we have film that clearly shows Luke losing his hand don't we?
 
"Extinct" laotian rock rat discovered

We can find a little bitty rock rat, missing for 11M years, but we can't locate sasquatch....

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — The first images of a live specimen of a small, furry animal once believed to have gone extinct more than 11 million years ago have been captured during a Southeast Asian expedition led by a retired Florida State University researcher.

The remarkable video and photos shot by David Redfield, a professor emeritus of FSU’s science education faculty, and Thai wildlife biologist Uthai Treesucon are being hailed as historic images documenting a true “living fossil,” the Laotian rock rat.
Click to expand...

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/rockratvid/
 
LTC8K6 said:
We can find a little bitty rock rat, missing for 11M years, but we can't locate sasquatch....



http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/rockratvid/
Click to expand...
The footers will love it. If they can find a rock rat after 11 million years, why not a squatch after, say 11 1/2 million? There's always hope, and footers love to cite things that have actually been found as evidence for the ones that have not. Besides, this is just a movie. Why do those pesky scientists accept this and not the PG film? It's all in how you spin it.

PS. rocky is a lot cuter than patty.
 
Well, when you know an animal existed, but you can't find it anymore, it's generally referred to as extinct.

I don't think a specific scientist declares it extinct.

We don't know if sasquatch existed in the first place.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Well, when you know an animal existed, but you can't find it anymore, it's generally referred to as extinct....
Click to expand...

The first images of a live specimen of a small, furry animal once believed to have gone extinct more than 11 million years ago have been captured during a Southeast Asian expedition led by a retired Florida State University researcher......
Click to expand...

They believed they had gone extinct.

Bleevers, I believe is the new term here.

Scientists who are also bleevers.

Imagine that! Would you believe it?

I don't think a specific scientist declares it extinct.
Click to expand...

Than who believed they were extinct if no "specific scientist declares it extinct"? The whole industry? You?

We don't know if sasquatch existed in the first place.
Click to expand...

It appears there is a whole bunch "we" don't know.

It also appears there's a whole bunch some folks don't want to know.
 
Nope, the media's wording doesn't really count.

Science declared the rat to be extinct.
Science knew the rat to be extinct.

Science was wrong.
Science corrected itself.

Even so, this is a bit like proving the negative isn't it?
Prove there are no rock rats, or you can't say they are extinct.
Well, we can't really prove there aren't any, can we?

We conclude that the animal is extinct, since nobody's seen one in a helluva long time, and all we have are very old fossils.

We are wrong.

Prove there are no X any more.
Silly standard. Can't be done.
At some point you do have to make a decision, though.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Nope, the media's wording doesn't really count....
Click to expand...

Does that bit of magic work in the world of sasquatchery, too?

Science declared the rat to be extinct.
Science knew the rat to be extinct.

Science was wrong.
Science corrected itself.

Even so, this is a bit like proving the negative isn't it?
Prove there are no rock rats, or you can't say they are extinct.
Well, we can't really prove there aren't any, can we?
Click to expand...

Nope.

But they believed them to be extinct anyway, didn't they?

Can't prove there are no sasquatches out there, either. In fact, there's more evidence that they exist than there is evidence that they don't exist.

Yet, many in science believe that they don't exist.

You, too.

Funny how that bleevin stuff goes, isn't it?

It's a two-way street.

We conclude that the animal is extinct, since nobody's seen one in a helluva long time, and all we have are very old fossils.

We are wrong.

Prove there are no X any more.
Silly standard. Can't be done.
At some point you do have to make a decision, though.
Click to expand...

Somebody chose the wrong decision at the wrong point, didn't they?

And we don't even know who that was.

I wonder why?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom