Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[tube]

Well, when someone says "It makes no sense P&G making a female gorilla bigfoot costume", I just ask "Why?" and remind him/her of Roe's sighting.

I also remind the person that several renderings of female "apemen" were available back in the 60s. Not to mention that a dangling male genitalia probably would not be something you would like to show in your movie back then...

Another possibliity may be even more simple: your basic gorilla suit, as supplied, is neuter, with neither breasts nor genitalia.

If you want to take it to the next level, and attempt to pass if off as a real animal, you would want to make that modification.

My speculation is that Patterson put the breasts on because he HAD to, not because he wanted to. I'll go further and suggest that Patterson made his breasts on the stiff side, as floppy breasts would provoke an instant ridicule factor.

A film of a giant hairy ape-man in the woods of Northern California already begs credulity, why make it worse with big breasts flopping around?

 

[Correa Neto]

No no no no no and no!

The feet are soes' soles, no toes!
The hair is too long and shaggy!
There are no muscles!
The mouth is open!
The fingers do not move!
The IM is wrong!
No one could walk like Patty using a costume like that!

No no no no no and no!

 

[Correa Neto]

*bumping the questions below*
Why should one consider the "Patty-like" renderings closer to the "real animal" than the others?
What are the criteria used to draw the line?

From my point of view, the alleged consistency in the descriptions obtained from eyewitnesses reports and PGF is not real; its created by a biased selection of reports. Unless "hairy and bipedal" is considered as a good enough match... But please, anyone feel free to demonstrate I'm wrong.

Or there are lots of species of humanoid cryptids roaming around in North America?

 

[RayG]

*bumping the questions below*
Why should one consider the "Patty-like" renderings closer to the "real animal" than the others?
What are the criteria used to draw the line?

From my point of view, the alleged consistency in the descriptions obtained from eyewitnesses reports and PGF is not real; its created by a biased selection of reports. Unless "hairy and bipedal" is considered as a good enough match... But please, anyone feel free to demonstrate I'm wrong.

Or there are lots of species of humanoid cryptids roaming around in North America?

.
The exact point I brought up over on the BFF more than a year ago. At least twice.

I don't think Patty proponents will be satisfied unless the replication matches exactly (fur, stride, height, bulk, length of limbs, shape of head, etc.).

RayG

 

[LTC8K6]

Ivan Marx satisfied John Green and others with a suit that looked nothing like Patty...

 

[SweatyYeti]

.
The exact point I brought up over on the BFF more than a year ago. At least twice.

I don't think Patty proponents will be satisfied unless the replication matches exactly (fur, stride, height, bulk, length of limbs, shape of head, etc.).

RayG

Here is a statement from your BFF post....

And how is it determined whether the replication "looks as real" as the PGF?

Easy....

When you look at the picture on the left....it takes approximately 1 second to realize it's a guy-in-a-suit.

In SHARP contrast...people have been looking at the picture on the right for approximately 40 years, and are still scratching their heads, wondering...."is it a real creature...or a man-in-a-suit???"...

Do you see the difference, Ray?

1 second for positive determination....versus 40 years of wondering...

That's what determines what "as real-looking as Patty" is.

Keep in mind I was talking about the film subject being an exact match, not the film. As I've said before, if the fur, stride, height, bulk, length of limbs, shape of head, and any other number of criteria don't match, then most PGF proponents are going to point a finger and say it doesn't look like the subject in the PGF

Keep in mind ONE SIMPLE THING, Ray....all anybody's asking for is a picture, or a video, of a suit that takes more than a few seconds to determine it's a guy-in-a-suit.

Nice try...but an "exact match" of Patty is not required....by anybody.

Got REALISM?

 

[kitakaze]

When you look at the picture on the left....it takes approximately 1 second to realize it's a guy-in-a-suit.

How long did Green take with Marx's film? How long did Meldrum take with the Snow Walker footage?

In SHARP contrast...people have been looking at the picture on the right for approximately 40 years, and are still scratching their heads, wondering...."is it a real creature...or a man-in-a-suit???"...

So that disqualifies it as reliable evidence? You mean a bunch of adult RPGer's are are convinced it's a real sasquatch while clutching dearly to it in lieu of reliable evidence?

Keep in mind ONE SIMPLE THING, Ray....all anybody's asking for is a picture, or a video, of a suit that takes more than a few seconds to determine it's a guy-in-a-suit.

That's all anybody's asking for? How about some reliable evidence of giant bipedal primates all over the continent? Well, I guess your question is answered by the two footage examples I gave above. Don't let that stop your burden of proof confusion, though.

Got REALISM?

Said the Martian civilization pareidolia king.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

How long did Meldrum take with the Snow Walker footage?

The Snow Walker video is irrelevant. The subject isn't seen in a comparable resolution...and it's not seen from the front.

So that disqualifies it as reliable evidence? You mean a bunch of adult RPGer's are are convinced it's a real sasquatch while clutching dearly to it in lieu of reliable evidence?

The point is not so much convinced as it is unclear.

Maybe you should re-read my post, kitakaze....

ONE second....and you KNOW you're looking at a man-in-a-suit...with every other image of a suit that's comparable in resolution.

40 Years.....and it's UNCLEAR as to whether or not the PG Film subject is a man-in-a-suit.

Do you understand the difference??


Again....the job for skeptics, should they accept the challenge, is to provide an image of a suit which closely approaches the realism of Patty.

According to many skeptics....the film is weightless as evidence of Bigfoot.....so therefore, it should be a simple matter to produce a suit as realistic-looking as Patty.
But.....evidently.....it's not so simple.

BTW...thanks for starting a Mars anomalies thread for me!
I hadn't even seen it. I'll add some more images to it, one of these days.

 

[Correa Neto]

That reasoning was so... Luminous!

Conveniently, it left aside most if not all problems already pointed out regarding PGF and is based on nothing but personal perceptions and opinions.

PGF defenders say Patty is a real bigfoot. Its their job to prove it is. And after 40 years trying, so far no success. They seem to be unable to provide any solid support to such a claim (a specimen, DNA, more footage or stills not suspected of being a hoax).

They try to shift the burden of proof. Here goes the burden for you again: Those who say Patty is real bigfoot could also try to build or modify some gorilla suits and remake PGF. Should not be hard, after all it takes one second to "know" Patty is not a bloke in a suit... Money should not be an issue, since they buy books on bigfoot, go to conventions, make field trips...

 

[kitakaze]

Keep in mind ONE SIMPLE THING, Ray....all anybody's asking for is a picture, or a video, of a suit that takes more than a few seconds to determine it's a guy-in-a-suit.

How long did Meldrum take with the Snow Walker footage?

The Snow Walker video is irrelevant. The subject isn't seen in a comparable resolution...and it's not seen from the front.

Uh-huh...

Sweaty, you need to take your own advice and re-read your post.

The point is not so much convinced as it is unclear.

That's funny, I thought that the PGF was some ambiguous old film that a bunch of irrational fringe belief people were clinging on to for dear life.

ONE second....and you KNOW you're looking at a man-in-a-suit...with every other image of a suit that's comparable in resolution.

40 Years.....and it's UNCLEAR as to whether or not the PG Film subject is a man-in-a-suit.

Do you understand the difference??


Again....the job for skeptics, should they accept the challenge, is to provide an image of a suit which closely approaches the realism of Patty.

According to many skeptics....the film is weightless as evidence of Bigfoot.....so therefore, it should be a simple matter to produce a suit as realistic-looking as Patty.
But.....evidently.....it's not so simple.

Every single aspect of the PGF film subject that has been put forward by proponents as showing it's veracity as an actual sasquatch has been shown in many suits in this very thread. Your Credibility Quest isn't going very well.

Oh... Hey, look!:

Brrr... Scary! Look at those muscles.

Mommy!

Now before you make another break for the goalposts let me give you a hand:

For Kerry, Sweaty, Lyndon, and all the Pattycake lurkers who demand a bigfoot suit comparable to Patty:

Harley Hoffman's bigfoot video.

WOW! Look at those muscles! Check the glossy short black hair! Neck? What neck?

By all means, proceed to move the goal posts by complaining it's not contemporaneous with Patty.

Where would you like the goalposts next?

BTW...thanks for starting a Mars anomalies thread for me!
I hadn't even seen it. I'll add some more images to it, one of these days.

Riiiight.

 

[Correa Neto]

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/BobHaHaHaHa2.jpg
The bigfoot on the right is from a different subspecies...
The bigfoot on the right has a different gender...
The bigfoot on the right has a different age...
The bigfoot on the right was storing fat for the winter...
[add excuse here]

 

[Aepervius]

Here is a statement from your BFF post....



Easy....

When you look at the picture on the left....it takes approximately 1 second to realize it's a guy-in-a-suit.

In SHARP contrast...people have been looking at the picture on the right for approximately 40 years, and are still scratching their heads, wondering...."is it a real creature...or a man-in-a-suit???"...

Do you see the difference, Ray?

1 second for positive determination....versus 40 years of wondering...

That's what determines what "as real-looking as Patty" is.





Keep in mind ONE SIMPLE THING, Ray....all anybody's asking for is a picture, or a video, of a suit that takes more than a few seconds to determine it's a guy-in-a-suit.

Nice try...but an "exact match" of Patty is not required....by anybody.

Got REALISM?

You got me there. I do not see much difference between the two, beside contrast and color. You say 1 second, well in 1 second I determined both are fairly identical. I thought they were both taken from the PGF...

So you might want to recalculate your estimate. And you might also say where are the difference between both that a superficial examination can show. Because frankly, without being biased, you are wayyyyy exaggerating your case here.

 

[Correa Neto]

K., comparing uruks with bigfeet...

Do you have an idea on how hard Saruman had to work to create them?

Shame on you!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

.....

Keep in mind ONE SIMPLE THING, Ray....all anybody's asking for is a picture, or a video, of a suit that takes more than a few seconds to determine it's a guy-in-a-suit.

Why do you get more than a few seconds, when it doesn't take any longer than that to determine this is a suit ?

 

[Geno]

No comparison?

I am new here so I do not have all the options but if you take the better resolution picture of Bob H in the suit and frame 352 and put them together, I for one see quite alot of similarity especially with the arms, shoulders and legs.

I have been studying BF for over 30 years and have always had a fascination with the PG film.

 

[Correa Neto]

.
The exact point I brought up over on the BFF more than a year ago. At least twice.

I don't think Patty proponents will be satisfied unless the replication matches exactly (fur, stride, height, bulk, length of limbs, shape of head, etc.).

RayG

Ray, I think you are correct.

They will find a minor difference and say "SEE? THEY COULDN'T DO IT!!!"

*bumping again the questions below*
Why should one consider the "Patty-like" renderings closer to the "real animal" than the others?
What are the criteria used to draw the line?

From my point of view, the alleged consistency in the descriptions obtained from eyewitnesses reports and PGF is not real; its created by a biased selection of reports. Unless "hairy and bipedal" is considered as a good enough match... But please, anyone feel free to demonstrate I'm wrong.

Or there are lots of species of humanoid cryptids roaming around in North America?

 

[SweatyYeti]

I am new here so I do not have all the options but if you take the better resolution picture of Bob H in the suit and frame 352 and put them together, I for one see quite alot of similarity especially with the arms, shoulders and legs.

I have been studying BF for over 30 years and have always had a fascination with the PG film.

Actually....the arms are quite different in length, in proportion to the body....

It's a real shame...Bob "Erronious" Heironimus tells 2 or 3 different stories of his wonderful adventure in the suit....and his body proportions don't quite fit.
It's a rather sad story....he didn't quite make it into the hoax of the century. But at least he still has his "believers".

 

[SweatyYeti]

Another comparison.....

Bob is oversized in comparison to Patty...and Patty's arms are still longer than Bob's.

 

[LTC8K6]

the arms are quite different in length, in proportion to the body....

Well, I can't tell how long the actor's arms are. The suit is hiding that info. Presuming it's a suit, of course. It's a bit silly to compare the suit's arms to a person's arms, isn't it?

 

[LTC8K6]

Bob is oversized in comparison to Patty...and Patty's arms are still longer than Bob's.

Wrong angle, arms at different points, can't compare suit to person, etc.