• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
Still (Kinda) New

Aepervius said:
Well at least quantum physic is falsified, bigfoot... welll.... Take it with humour ;).
Click to expand...

Sorry about the jab, my friend. Everybody gets defensive, occasionally.
All inputs should be welcomed, it keeps everything in perspective. And I really respect the 'math' sciences.

(okay then, let's get it on!)
 
Man, that seems like a rather soft position coming from a person who was actually chased by a Bigfoot.
 
manofthesea said:
Sorry about the jab, my friend. Everybody gets defensive, occasionally.
All inputs should be welcomed, it keeps everything in perspective. And I really respect the 'math' sciences.

(okay then, let's get it on!)
Click to expand...

I appreciate your humour too, especially the one on "math science". Now if half the bigfoot believer would have half your humour... Or twice as much evidence on Bigfoot existence... Although that would not change much from today's amount of evidence.
 
Aepervius said:
I appreciate your humour too, especially the one on "math science".
.
Click to expand...

My son appreciates it also. He's majoring in astronomy/physic.
(finished his math studies, but now working in 'invasive species control'. Just to take a break, gather some perspective.)
 
See the Great Woo, Be Amazed!

How do you guys like my avatar? (any critical eye should quickly determine the subject(s) of the photo) Photo is mine.
 
Since we're on the subject of creature costumes and breasts, I figured I should point out the existence of a 1956 movie called "The She Creature," which featured a monster with large breasts.

Finding a clear picture of the suit with the breasts fully visible online is hard due to the numerous pictures of the poster, pictures that only show the monster's head, or that are from a more recent movie with the same title. I did manage to find these pictures and a picture that might be of a toy or model kit version of the creature.

According to this informative article about the work done by the suit's creator, Paul Blaisdell "...took great pride in the creations he made for these movies. He said of his She-Creature, "She could do anything...She could eat, she could sleep, she could drink...She could borrow a cigarette from you, inhale it and blow smoke out of her nose. And in spite of how clumsy her claws appear to be, she could pick a handkerchief out of your pocket. These were the things I built into her to make her more lifelike." Blaisdell worked hard to make his monsters detailed, flexible, and active."

The article also notes that the She Creature suit had "...sharp horns that protruded from the creature's belly and could be opened and closed using his stomach muscles. Blaisdell termed them "lunch hooks" and they were designed to ensnare and disembowel a foe. The director decided not to use them."

I don't know how anyone could seriously consider arguing that a monster suit maker couldn't think of "minor details" after reading that. It takes far more imagination to add working "lunch hooks" to a costume than it does to add breasts.

This site claims there was a stir over the costume's breasts when the movie came out (it also notes more about Blaisdell's work and his magazine that give creature suit-building tips), but that didn't stop the suit from getting modified and reused in 1957's "Voodoo Woman" (albeit wearing clothing) and in 1959's "The Ghost of Dragstrip Hollow." I should note that picture is from the official website of famed gorilla suit actor, Bob Burns. The supposed stir also didn't keep the movie from airing on television, as shown by these vintage TV listings. It doesn't seem like giving a Bigfoot costume breasts would've negatively effected its ability to be shown in theaters or on TV to me.

I should also note that when the actor selected to play the title creature in "It! The Terror From Beyond Space" (1958) was too large for the costume Mr. Blaisdell created, he came up with an ingenius solution to the problem of the actor's chin sticking out of the mask's mouth: He painted it so it would look like the monster's tongue! You can read more about it here.
 
Correa Neto said:
As for the "why would a hoaxer build a female bigfoot costume?" line, well, besides the obvious "why not?" "what's easier to fake? Dangling boobs or dangling weenies?" questions there is a previous lenghty abduction report involving female bigfeet.
Click to expand...

I thought Greg Long had determined the inspiration for it being a female was likely the William Roe story from John Green's newspaper clipping collection, which Roger Patterson had been allowed to view before he took his footage.

The short version is that a Canadian man named William Roe in 1957 claimed that in 1955, he saw a bigfoot sqatting in the brush on the other side of a clearing. Then the thing stood up and he saw it had breasts. It eventualy walked away from him, looking back over its shoulder as it did. In Roe's sketch of the creature, its breasts are covered with hair.
 
kitakaze said:
I'm sure you don't mean to intimate that we should find you more credible then the people who claim to have seen a bigfoot that stunk, a bigfoot that had glowing red eyes, a bigfoot that talked, a bigfoot that was 3ft, white, and walked sideways. Or that it happened in Iowa, New Mexico, New york, etc.

Are you saying that the detailed information I provided was not factual? You are the one who commented to Correa about being informed of the facts of the incident and implied that they indicated death by sasquatch. Here it is:In actuality you were the one who was uninformed and had the failure of common sense to consider bigfoot as responsible. Did you even look at an image of where James was found before we gave you posts providing them?

If it was only you that saw bigfoot in that tragedy and posted your thoughts on it here first then that iis another matter. I'm quite sure I've seen a thread at BFF where the incident was discussed and people were speculating about bigfoot being the cause. Does that ring a bell and if so did you post in that thread?

Now concerning you claim of bigfoot encounters including being chased, would you like to share the details or did I miss that somewhere? Have you already posted your stories over at BFF? It need not be mentioned that we will be skeptical but I'm curious to see if an alternative explanation might present itself.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't see that at BFF. And I never found the thread you mentioned about H. Florens, either.
The incident happened last December, I found BFF in May. Got filtration?
Tell me, is WP that 'Idaho school teacher'?

In fact, WAS THE DISTRESS CALL TAPED OR NOT?

Having trouble dealing with this rant, any more questions just ask.
 
Last edited:
kitakaze said:
Now concerning you claim of bigfoot encounters including being chased, would you like to share the details or did I miss that somewhere? Have you already posted your stories over at BFF? It need not be mentioned that we will be skeptical but I'm curious to see if an alternative explanation might present itself.
Click to expand...

That's in Encounters section at BFF. 'Wanna Hear a Scary Story?'

Tell me, what is your screen name at BFF? WP's too.
 
How can we make people think this is a full grown sasquatch? The costume will fit a 6' tall person, and then it will fill out to 6'6"? They are going to say, 'why is bigfoot so short?'

Make it a female?

You're a genius baby!
 
An ovum ?

Fertilized or not ?

P.S.
I blew it up....
Looks like a critter ... Dog ?

what.bmp
 
Last edited:
http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/uploads/page4.jpg

Just to be clear of how big a foot they mean, you can see Loren Coleman's foot resting on a Bluff Creek casting.

Now you have to ask yourself, and maybe do a little math, about how heavy would the beastie have to be for it's feet to sink a whole lot deeper into the soil, given this much larger foot surface area.

The claim is usually that bigfoot made a deep track, but the person who found the tracks could barely dent the soil.

In the case of the PGF, I believe the claim is actually that Patty pressed the Earth to the tune of 2-3 inches, whereas as Bob Gimlin didn't make much of an impression even when he jumped off a stump.
 
I have a casting question.

If you have a track that is deep, do you fill up the whole track to record the depth as well? Or, do you just fill up the bottom to get the impression of the bottom of the foot?

If you had a 2" deep sasquatch track, would you have a 2" thick cast, or say a 1/2" thick cast of the bottom only?

I suppose it could depend on how much casting material you have handy.
 
The argument is, that surface area of a foot increases by a power of 2, and weight of said beast increases by a power of 3, therefore the weight is increasing at a faster rate than the surface area of the foot.

However, if the foot, of the species is by design disproportionately larger than the weight of the beast, the ratios listed above have no bearing. It's all really a wasted argument until they find one to measure and probe.
 
People sometimes say "Well wouldn't Patty have run if she had seen Roger chasing her with a camera?"

'NO' I say, because if Patty had run, then people would have questioned why the footprints were so flat and neat, and Roger Patterson probably foresaw that scenario.

Knowing he had flat footprints, and that people had a preconception of what BIGFOOT prints looked like(Flat, five toes, big) , he couldn't go in there and get a print from a beast in motion. The footprints wouldn't mesh with the running beast.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom