Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Skeptical Greg]

By the way, this does not mean I'm changing my view of the possible print that is shown in this clip.

O.K .

It's a print.
We see a thumb.
The fingers bend.

Where is the evidence that the subject of the film is a non-human North American primate ?

 

[LTC8K6]

If you look at the still from the U-Tube footage, it looks very much like his thumb.

If you look at Patty in the you tube footage, can you tell if she's a man in a suit?

 

[LTC8K6]

At least I have the guts to admit when I've been wrong.

Why were you so adamant that it was a thumb, to the point of creating gifs to show that it was a thumb, and claiming that it was Davis's idea?

 

[Luminous]

Why were you so adamant that it was a thumb, to the point of creating gifs to show that it was a thumb, and claiming that it was Davis's idea?

Because for some reason I thought it was. Yes, I was adamant. But as you have shown, I was obviously wrong. I'm honestly not sure how I came to that conclusion, but regretfully, I did.

Diogenes, the only evidence I have is the same evidence you have. We each see it differently. But I can truly say since I've come here I have new questions about the film. Questions I'd like answers to. But the evidence still speaks volumes to me. I have a hard time accepting that it's a man in a suit. You know all the reasons why. The appearance of viscus musculature, the inhuman looking frame, the ease in which she seemingly glides over the debris-ridden terrain. The authentic looking face. The holes in Heronomis' story. etc. etc. etc. What more is there to argue about? Got any new angles to consider? Fire away...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Why do you ignore the fact that the thumb of the person holding the camera would have covered the lens ?

Have you looked at the map of the site ? Did you see the film of McClarin walking the path Patty walked. Have you kooked at the pictures of Roger casting tracks ? There was no debris to navigate...

Your good buddy Lu has a wealth of this information, and she could save you a lot of embarrasment, but she doesn't.

What do you think about that ?

 

[tube]

Kerry, if you are buds with MK, can you tell us when he's going to release his fully-formed and much anticipated "Digger Indian" film analysis?

I was present in Pocatello when MK shared with the attendees his finding that in one particular frame of the film Patty's anus is visible. This seemed to arouse the interest of attendee Eric Beckjord, who opined that Patty's vagina was also visible.

Vigorous discussion ensued.

 

[kitakaze]

Side step? What are you talking about? I have nothing to hide. I obviously read into something and somehow got the impression we were looking at his thumb. If you look at the still from the U-Tube footage, it looks very much like his thumb. I didn't put the info out of a hat! Someone said it, or I read it somewhere and I ran with it.

You expect me to say I made it up? Well, I can't, cause I didn't. I have no problems sharing this blunder either. You're hypocritical standing over me in judgment like that. You're not my judge or my jury. No crime was committed here. Just a mistake or a misunderstanding.

At least I have the guts to admit when I've been wrong. Do you? The way you're accusing me over this is wrong. It would be nice if you'd admit that you're attitude wreaks of self-righteousness.

By the way, this does not mean I'm changing my view of the possible print that is shown in this clip.

Kerry, while I'm tempted to comment on your stating that you have nothing to hide and address your appeal to sympathy point by point, there really is no need. Simply, it is empty, contrived, and without merit. To have any meaning or to be taken even slightly serious you should clarify and correct the fallaciousness of your claim and how it was that you learned it in the bigfooter community where you made it. Not quietly having LAL remove it for you and pretending as though it didn't exist. Not taking responsibility for you words, ideas, and actions gives you zero respect and my books and shows me you're more interested in perpetuating bigfoot silliness than getting a hold on the truth.

Admitting the mistake here is secondary. It was a fall-out-of-your-seat-laughing claim from the first moment we saw it here. Even when given a graphic demonstration that you were wrong you didn't immediately retract. That you did was a 'yeah, no kidding' moment. Let's see if you have some integrity. Let's see if you can admit at your Mid-America Bigfoot Researcher's Community what mangler showed you about your 'research'.

BTW, if you want to continue denying the obvious piece of dead wood and exclaim about possible footprints that's fine but it only illustrates how far gone your role play game has taken your common sense.

 

[kitakaze]

Because for some reason I thought it was. Yes, I was adamant. But as you have shown, I was obviously wrong. I'm honestly not sure how I came to that conclusion, but regretfully, I did.

Why you don't take the next obvious step and start to have a good hard look at the other claims you are promoting is beyond me. No wait, scratch that it's not beyond me at all. The bigfoot game is too long on you. Too much dress up has replaced a sincere spirit of inquiry into the truth and knowledge and left you scratching your head at the sight of dead wood or tearing up beaver dams to allow vehicle access for your sasquatch chase.

Forget the PGF. I've said it a million times, it's either a man in a suit which we know is done quite often or it's a creature we have not a single shred of reliable evidence for that is claimed to be seen in many varying forms all over North America and indeed around the world. Your pareidolia play pulling footprints and thumbs out means absolutely nothing other than to give some much needed distraction to some bored role play fans. It gives you an excuse to sit around and pat eachother on the back for your 'research'. I'm reminded of seeing you compliment Sweaty and refer to him as the 'new MK Davis' at the MABRC for him pointing out tracks in the first part of the Freeman Footage. I can't help feeling a little sympathy seeing someone's grasp of the obvious so impaired. 'Hey! Freeman pointed the camera down before the subject was filmed and there was a track there! Do you realize what this means!?' *groan* Sweet Zombie Jesus, it's cat milking time!

Seriously, I've also said many times that it's the 'researchers', the myth perpetuators that are what's interesting and needs some focus. You are one of these people, big time. Even when you tried to come here and pretend to be otherwise. You've made it pretty clear that only kicking and screaming will you be torn from your bigfoot claims. I think what would be useful is to have some of your claims and bigfoot exploits shown here. Give some non-role players a look at the things you attribute to bigfoot. It should provide some perspective at least.

 

[drapier]

I was present in Pocatello when MK shared with the attendees his finding that in one particular frame of the film Patty's anus is visible. This seemed to arouse the interest of attendee Eric Beckjord, who opined that Patty's vagina was also visible.

Vigorous discussion ensued.

Seriously, I've also said many times that it's the 'researchers', the myth perpetuators that are what's interesting and needs some focus.

Indeed. What treasures haven't bigfoot enthusiasts found in this Rorschach blot of a film? If I were a psychologist, I think I'd have an interesting time analyzing some of these discoveries.

Be thankful, Luminous, that you only saw a thumb!

 

[kitakaze]

Kerry, if you are buds with MK, can you tell us when he's going to release his fully-formed and much anticipated "Digger Indian" film analysis?

I was present in Pocatello when MK shared with the attendees his finding that in one particular frame of the film Patty's anus is visible. This seemed to arouse the interest of attendee Eric Beckjord, who opined that Patty's vagina was also visible.

Vigorous discussion ensued.

[edit] post snipped, rules 9 & 11 [/edit]

Please remember to keep it on topic and not gratuitous in the public areas.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Miss Anthrope

 

[William Parcher]

BTW, if you want to continue denying the obvious piece of dead wood and exclaim about possible footprints that's fine but it only illustrates how far gone your role play game has taken your common sense.

From my perspective, the first breach of common sense is believing that Bigfoot exists after all and joining the ranks of the Bigfooters. Common sense would suggest that such a creature would have already been confirmed by now.

Secondary breaches of common sense (thinking wood is a footprint) are somewhat trivial because they are probably just ongoing symptoms of the original state-of-mind that allows for the strong thought that Bigfoot is real.

 

[Correa Neto]

Duuuude!

Some more pages of... Nothing?


Wake me up when something worthy of discussing is presented.

 

[Luminous]

Why do you ignore the fact that the thumb of the person holding the camera would have covered the lens ?

Have you looked at the map of the site ? Did you see the film of McClarin walking the path Patty walked. Have you kooked at the pictures of Roger casting tracks ? There was no debris to navigate...

Your good buddy Lu has a wealth of this information, and she could save you a lot of embarrassment, but she doesn't.

What do you think about that ?

I thought he just slipped or something. Nothing else occurred to me.

I've seen those pics. There was definitely a sand bar that it walked on for some of the footage, I've never denied that, but even a casual glance at the footage reveals debris. And no, I don't have a depth perception problem. There were sticks, rocks, downed trees. Anyone who has been there will tell you that it's rugged terrain. BH could not have navigated this in his marshmallow suit without getting snagged, or stumbling. Besides this was supposed to be something like 20 miles into the wilderness or so. If they were gonna fake this whole episode, I highly doubt they'd go through so much trouble. Why if it was unnecessary? Why not choose a closer location, say like only 4 or 5 miles in? It just doesn't make sense.

As far as LAL is concerned, I'm a big boy, I don't need someone to bail me out of my own mistakes. Save me? I don't need saving. I made a mistake. Simple as that. Name one person on this board who hasn't. I'm sure if I did a little searching, I could find places where you have made statements that weren't factually accurate. Now to get you, or some of the others here, to admit their mistakes would be next to impossible. That's my impression anyway.

 

[Luminous]

Kerry, if you are buds with MK, can you tell us when he's going to release his fully-formed and much anticipated "Digger Indian" film analysis?

I was present in Pocatello when MK shared with the attendees his finding that in one particular frame of the film Patty's anus is visible. This seemed to arouse the interest of attendee Eric Beckjord, who opined that Patty's vagina was also visible.

Vigorous discussion ensued.

Who said I was buds with M.K. Davis? I've never even met the man. I respect his work, disagree with some of his opinions, but I don't personally know him. As for the rest of your comment, it is irrelevant and unnecessary.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

...It just doesn't make sense......

I have news for you ... Bigfoot doesn't make sense ..


I make mistakes all the time, and when I realize it, or am shown by someone,
I have no trouble acknowledging it ..

Try me sometime.

 

[LTC8K6]

Luminous, you are just plain dishonest, imo.

You know what you post is not true, imo.

You know there was no debris in Patty's way. You know Patty does not walk like a biped avoiding debris. You know that Patty isn't even looking where she's going some of the time. You know that a casual glance at the footage does not reveal debris in Patty's path.

You know that Bluff Creek is where the sightings and tracks were. You know this is why Roger went there. You know this is why he shot the film there. You know it was no additional trouble to go there because they were going there anyway to investigate tracks and to film Roger's documentary. You know it makes no sense for Roger to film his documentary anywhere else.

 

[Luminous]

Luminous, you are just plain dishonest, imo.

You know what you post is not true, imo.

You know there was no debris in Patty's way. You know Patty does not walk like a biped avoiding debris. You know that Patty isn't even looking where she's going some of the time. You know that a casual glance at the footage does not reveal debris in Patty's path.

You know that Bluff Creek is where the sightings and tracks were. You know this is why Roger went there. You know this is why he shot the film there. You know it was no additional trouble to go there because they were going there anyway to investigate tracks and to film Roger's documentary. You know it makes no sense for Roger to film his documentary anywhere else.

That dosen't suprise me. It's to your advantage to label me dishonest. But it doesn't make it true. Believe what you want. I can't stop you.

I not only have evidence of debris in the P/G film itself, I also have seen recent pictures if the exact area. Granted, it has changed in 40 years, but the ground debris is very much like it was in 67.

I don't know why you keep insisting that Patty (or Bob ) was walking down the yellow brick road. The ground was loaded with debris. Just look at your famed stick for example. If Bob was wearing specially shaped footprint-like "slippers" as some insist, they would have been torn to shreds at different points of the journey. Especially at the end of the film, which is ignored by most folks.

If it was costume, the hair probably would have snagged, or Bob would most likely have stumbled as he was probably sweating and not able to see well through the mask. The ground at certain points was littered with sharp rocks, sticks, branches, logs, holes, mounds, etc. etc. etc. Except for the sandbar, the place was a minefield of possible accidents.

 

[GT/CS]

"He probably couldn't have done it" is not a valid argument. Some people say that the Egyptians couldn't have built the pyramids, but they did. Assuming that since you can't do something then no-one else can either is egotistical, rude, and foolish, and is a mean nothing ploy.

 

[kitakaze]

I'm just stepping out so I don't quite have time but would somebody mind putting up a link to the recent-ish youtube hoax featuring two guys ambushed in the middle of the forest by the asskicker sasquatch. It comes full speed out of the shadows, jumping all over the place Jackie Chan style and the guys bolt. Anybody remember what I'm talking about?

 

[superbu]

Anyway, the thread contains a most interesting set of still images from a "second roll of film taken by Patterson". Nobody really denies that there was a second roll, but it too seems to be "unavailable" just like the first (primary) roll that Patterson presented to the world.

The color stills you posted are from the 1971 film "Bigfoot: Man or Beast," availalbe on DVD from Bijou Flix. I personally own a copy. (Can't include a link... I don't have enough posts.) The television previews for the film were the first I'd ever heard of "Bigfoot," and in 1971, at six years old, they scared the hell out of me, so of course I had to have a copy. It's fun for its camp value, if nothing else.

But interesting observations about the position of the sun. I'm convinced, after many years of believing, that the Patterson-Gimlin film is a hoax. I believe Bob Heironimous's story. (Though I'm not sure I believe the story of Philip Morris, the alleged costume maker.)