• 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.
I've shown specific, scientific analysis of Patty's leg and Dfoot's padded leg...
You absolutely in no way have shown any scientific analysis that makes Patty being a bigfoot more likely than a man in a suit. Your understanding of what constitutes scientific analysis is deeply flawed.

How do the measurements you've taken make a real bigfoot more likely? Explain that. Can you do that?

How about drawing some lines on the middle left image here?:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=9892

First you need to establish protocols for your analysis, you need a data set. If you think something about the lines you've drawn supports a living bigfoot you need quantative data to show that. Since you don't have any bigfoot legs or photos of bigfoot legs handy you should start by having a large selection of images of comparable real human legs and padded legs in similar varying positions in which the measurements are significantly consistant. You should establish some controls to ensure that your data hasn't been skewed by such things as perspective issues. Also, has it been firmly established that there was padding in the area you are drawing lines on?

Sweaty, so far Dfoot has done far more than you ever have at analyzing the PGF. The latest round of 'Sweaty plays with lines' does not cut it in the least.
 
Kitakaze, you ask too much of Sweaty, after all he has no burden of proof here, the burden falls squarely on anyone who criticizes the PGF as a hoax. Surely you were aware of that.

Honestly, I think Dfoot's work is far and above anything I've seen on the BF forums, especially when you consider, that in reality, he has no burden to supply anything to discount the PGF.
 
So far...it's mostly Dfoot's personal take on his images.....and that is not scientific analysis...it's simply his personal opinion on what the images show.

Example of analysis NOT consisiting of personal opinion....
Your entire joke you call an analysis is based on a personal opinion, Sweaty. Here it is:

The reason for the smaller angle on the padded leg is because padding is stiffer than flesh, and doesn't flex, or change, as much as real live flesh does. :)
Not only a personal opinion but an uninformed opinion on top of that. What qualifies you to render an opinion on padding? You have some experience with it? You work with padding, maybe?

Excuse me while I lend greater credence to the opinion of someone who's profession it is to work with creature suits then some random bigfoot fan.
 
SweatyYeti said:
I think the Freeman video could be real. There are things about it that support it being legitimate...and things that indicate it may be a hoax.

A quick Google search reveals that the stuff people often use to say it's legitimate are the supposed infant, the supposed clavicle, and the bizarre placement of the head.

One possible explanation for the clavicle and the head placement is that a "deluxe"-style, overhead Halloween mask with some non-facial anatomical details was used. The odd placement could be due to it slipping on its homemade mounting device (used to create the illusion of greater height).


And, yes, masks like that and devices like that do exist.

But neither the Freeman nor the Redwoods videos are comparable to the PG film, as far as the 'degree of resolution' of the subjects are concerned.

Considering the "degree of resolution" for that film, I doubt you'll find any other films that match up to its...um..."unique" visual quality.

Such as, this stabilized animated gif I made quite a while ago....
At the very end of the video, there is something which looks like 2 legs moving up and into the main subject's body....a possible infant being lifted up by the main subject of the video.

It could also be a video artifact or an attempt to show a Bigfoot preparing to eat a animal. Could a hoaxer have used a fake Bigfoot baby? Sure; skeptics have questioned the lack of good footage of a Bigfoot family unit before and a hoaxer could draw inspiration from that. There seems to be some resistance to that idea, since Freeman didn't mention it (although there was some debate over whether or not "There's two of them" referring to the two adults or the adult with the supposed child). For some reason, nobody seems to have considered the "Freeman forgot/flubbed a line" explanation.

Kitakaze said:
I was wondering if any of them out there reading the thread could provide a list of sightings reports of a creature matching Patty's description contemporaneous with the film. That's not a stretch, is it?

This isn't contemporaneous, but...

SweatyYeti said:
Dfoot posted this image.......and failed to present any data along with it.

So it's kinda like your "crest too pointed to fit on a human head" argument? I don't recall you providing any data for that.

Sweatyyeti said:
To show just how much padding would have been required in Patty's upper leg....here is Jim McClarin, at 6'5" in height, next to Patty....

I should point out that we don't know if the person in the suit was as lanky as Jim McClarin. And as I've noted countless times, various Godzilla costumes show much larger leg proportions than Patty does.

Now that I think about it, various people in the forum have addressed how various aspects of Patty can be created or costumes that already exhibit such qualities:

Short fur
Arm and leg muscles on costumes
Moving muscles
Ease of movement
Gait
Locked knees
Leg lift
Bulk
Length of arms
Head
Costumes/masks that look like or can be modified to look like Patty
Buttcrack
Breasts

Shouldn't all of those put together, coupled with sources of inspiration for Patterson (The Roe sighting, etc.), be good enough to show that's possible for a costumed man to be responsible for what's seen on the film?

Oh, and if anyone wants an example of a picture or film confusing intelligent people for decades into thinking that it could show a real monster: The "Surgeon's photograph" of the Loch Ness Monster.

If anyone wants to see that Andy Lau muscle suit in action, it was used in the movie "Running on Karma." You can see the trailer for it here.
 
William Parcher said:
A man had questions about the PGF, and an old Apache gave him answers.

As usual, Robert W. Morgan doesn't fail to amuse. Apparently, you aren't a true Native American if you don't think Sasquatch is a real animal. I still think his appearance on the Art Bell show is funnier. Not only did he try to convince a woman that a clothed man she apparently saw in the woods at night was really Bigfoot (Art Bell called him out on that being ridiculous), but when "Bugs" offered to allow Art Bell to release the map leading to the two Sasquatches he claimed to have killed if someone could convince him that he didn't shoot human beings, Morgan immediately went into a speech about how Bigfoot is humanlike.

Kitikaze said:
Thunderbirds are known creatures?

Well, according to some cryptozoologists...

Correa Neto said:
...the afternoon shift, after spending the night piloting a black helicopter chasing Santa Claus around the globe can be a pain...

Didn't you hear? Santa Claus is based on Bigfoot! Now Santa can join the ranks of Enkidu, Grendel, windigo, werewolves, trolls, Goatman, Lizardman, and the "real" Jersey Devil as really being a misidentified Sasquatch.

devnull said:
this whole thread is like a bad dream I cant wake up from.

Bwa ha ha ha!
 
Drew - Thanks, but I really didn't spend any money. One Halloween I spent $89 on an adult Wookie suit. It was just a cheap hair suit that didn't even have a zipper. It tied in the back like any kiddy costume. I spent $20 bucks on a TOR mask and then used some foam, rubber and paint I had in the garage to dress it up. I was never trying to make an imitation of Patty, I just wanted a Bigfoot dummy for Halloween decorations that wasn't bald.

After speaking with the people at BFF I did a few tests. It took only a few hours and cost nothing except for the jar of latex I purchased. I already had some liquid latex and plaster in the garage. Just some experiments to see how hard it would be to build a Patty. Turns out, it's not all that hard.

I've never made a creature effect in my life and I am as clueless as anyone else. My job is as a stunt coordinator/second unit director. I work with (and have worn) creature suits of the type being discussed. I was asked about Patty after I tried to explain that the BBC program was a recreation of the WAY the film was shot; no one ever said they were building a "Patty" imitation. That's what started all this for me.

I worked with JOHN VULICH and he told me that he simply rented them a red ape suit he had hanging in the shop. They liked the idea that it was just a red ape with hand-like feet. Who would have guessed that people would post pics of the red ape suit as if that were "Hollywood's attempt to imitate Patty" or something? That's too stupid to even suggest - yet it's just what happened. An example of the infamous out-of-context thought process that's so common.

Sweaty Yeti - Which brings me back to your drawing on my leg as if that makes Patty not have padding in her leg. That ISN'T the same pad that you see me walking in. That was the very first pad I made. I too thought that I should make the thigh line further back and you should be able to see that I did just that. As I walk you can see the "incredible hamstring line" is exactly as it is with Patty. I posted that indoor pic of the first pad because I thought you could see the lines clearer and it would help you. Imagine how shocked I am to see that you are taking that out of context (Just kidding - I'm not shocked at all).:)

I made the bottom and top in two colors. I did that to try to show you the lines to look for in Patty. You can make the thigh pad wrap completely around the leg (as it is in the Gorn) or you can make the line disappear altogether (as I did in another pic I showed you in which I was trying to show you the KNEE CAP - so please don't draw on the hamstring and ask where the line is. Look at the pics of me walking for that effect).

Taking things out of context seems to be the staple technique in Bigfootery. It's done by Green and Meldrum regarding footprints and suits. It's done all the time by others. It's too bad that desperation has set in this way. It makes it difficult to take anything seriously.


Yes, this one is where Patty's thigh pad line is and it moves exactly the same way. Now please don't start posting about the hair:boggled:


I've outlined the pads and knee cap for you. Watch Patty closely and see if you can spot it.


The Gorn leg is designed to show lines further around the back of the leg. Which is superior, out-of-focus Patty or in-focus Gorn? If he had hair would his hamstring be better or worse? What if he came from another planet or dimension, would he still not be as good as Patty?

Since Patty's thigh pads were meant to be worn by a shorter person walking in a squat position we unfortunately can plainly see the top line of the pad encircling the leg and the suit-leg skin stretching from the pad line to go under the upper portion of the suit. Dead give-a-way.


Study the above photo well. You can even see the pad in the elbow that was typical of these suits.


Here's McClarin walking with Bob H. again. Heironimus is a hair under 6' with about 5 or 6" of helmet-head. This is more accurate than what Green has shown you.

No insult intended to anyone. Just trying to post some things I've learned.

I'd love to post larger video, but the forum doesn't seem to allow that. Like I said before, in the coming year I'll be getting together with a friend who inherited a bunch of suits from the guys who made Patty. I want to see what he has and what I can learn about the construction. After that maybe I'll build a Patty of some sort for you. It only takes a day.

Yet I already know that if he should happen to have a piece of Patty tucked away no one will believe it's her. In fact, if they ever saw Patty in crystal clarity they'd be shocked at what she looks like versus what they IMAGINE she looks like.

Roger and Al did this one just right.:p
 
You're Really Out There

...? I'm having serious doubts about your comprehension abilities, MOTS. Please explain how you derived me believing in myths literally from that post.

You wanted a 'literal' thunderbird. I told you that it was based on an eagle. Much like the trickster is based on coyote. And on and on.

I'm starting to think that you're just a sock puppet of Correa Neto. You state that you're in Japan, he states that he is in Brasil. Hmmm.
 
As usual, Robert W. Morgan doesn't fail to amuse. Apparently, you aren't a true Native American if you don't think Sasquatch is a real animal. I still think his appearance on the Art Bell show is funnier. Not only did he try to convince a woman that a clothed man she apparently saw in the woods at night was really Bigfoot (Art Bell called him out on that being ridiculous), but when "Bugs" offered to allow Art Bell to release the map leading to the two Sasquatches he claimed to have killed if someone could convince him that he didn't shoot human beings, Morgan immediately went into a speech about how Bigfoot is humanlike.



Yep, Morgan tends to ramble a lot, and in EVERY appearance I have heard him on any radio show he is on, he launches into the SAME FREAKING SPEECH about the humanness of Bigfoot. It is a pattern with him-it's always about how apes don't have buttocks, but humans and Bigfoot do; apes don't have the hallux or the big toe, humans and Bigfoot do. THE SAME DADGUM SPEECH!!! Plus he tends to ramble about religion and spirituality and Mysticism with Indians, stuff which has NOTHING to do with Bigfoot! He has no really new ideas-all of his ideas are so hopelessly outdated it's pathetic. On EVERY show he appears on, he says that Bigfoot lives with nature, and that we live in spite of it. The man has no new ideas, just the same old tired ideas he espoused in his movie Bigfoot: Man Or Beast? (originally titled The Search For Bigfoot). Morgan is, unfortunately, stuck in the '70's and tends to take over a show, hogging the mic and the time. Not even the poor host of any program he is on can really get a word in edgewise. He is not really considered all that important as a researcher anymore by most Bigfooters.
 
Last edited:
For Starters, you drew your line on the right hand photo to intersect lower on the knee than you did on the patty photo. I drew the yellow line in, where I see you drawing your line on the photo of Patty.

Where does that angle fit?[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_19705477289837bf64.jpg[/URL]


Apparantly you don't understand exactly how and why I extended those lines on Patty's and Dfoot's legs, Drewbot.

I'll go over it again, later. :)
 
You absolutely in no way have shown any scientific analysis that makes Patty being a bigfoot more likely than a man in a suit.

That's your opinion. Estimated value...2 cents. To me, personally, it's worthless.

Your understanding of what constitutes scientific analysis is deeply flawed.

No examples......only more hot air, from the 'babble King'. :)

How do the measurements you've taken make a real bigfoot more likely? Explain that. Can you do that?

Take a guess how it does, kitty. Clue: Think muscle movement.

I'm doing one thing at a time, and right now I'm trying to analyse the differences between Dfoot's padded leg and Patty's leg.


Why?


First you need to establish protocols for your analysis, you need a data set. If you think something about the lines you've drawn supports a living bigfoot you need quantative data to show that. Since you don't have any bigfoot legs or photos of bigfoot legs handy you should start by having a large selection of images of comparable real human legs and padded legs in similar varying positions in which the measurements are significantly consistant. You should establish some controls to ensure that your data hasn't been skewed by such things as perspective issues. Also, has it been firmly established that there was padding in the area you are drawing lines on?


Sorry to inform you, kitty....but I don't need to do a complete study on the subject, to produce some part of a study, or analysis.

If anyone here wants to contribute...let them. If you'd like to contribute to the analysis.....by all means, go ahead and do so.

Again...if someone sees a SPECIFIC error in what I've posted...point it out.



Sweaty, so far Dfoot has done far more than you ever have at analyzing the PGF.


So far, Dfoot has done a remarkable job of posting tiny little images of padded legs, without highlighting them, and producing ANY measured data.
He has yet to demonstrate anything with his padded legs which would qualify as "scientific analysis".


The latest round of 'Sweaty plays with lines' does not cut it in the least.


And the latest round of "kitty plays with babble" isn't amounting to a hill of beans.......as usual.
 
That's your opinion. Estimated value...2 cents. To me, personally, it's worthless.



No examples......only more hot air, from the 'babble King'. :)



Take a guess how it does, kitty. Clue: Think muscle movement.

I'm doing one thing at a time, and right now I'm trying to analyse the differences between Dfoot's padded leg and Patty's leg.



Why?





Sorry to inform you, kitty....but I don't need to do a complete study on the subject, to produce some part of a study, or analysis.

If anyone here wants to contribute...let them. If you'd like to contribute to the analysis.....by all means, go ahead and do so.

Again...if someone sees a SPECIFIC error in what I've posted...point it out.






So far, Dfoot has done a remarkable job of posting tiny little images of padded legs, without highlighting them, and producing ANY measured data.
He has yet to demonstrate anything with his padded legs which would qualify as "scientific analysis".





And the latest round of "kitty plays with babble" isn't amounting to a hill of beans.......as usual.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Sweaty please learn the difference between objective and subjective.

Now about the objective; How about the wrist band that proves Patty is a bloke in a suit. Proves it, Sweaty. Proves it beyond a reasonable doubt, unless you can offer some evidence to the contrary.

Man, it's gotta be a major embarrassment to have your own pictures used against you in such a way that destroys your entire belief system. I guess that explains the sweating.
 
The theory that the gigantopithacus, which presumably went extinct about 30,000 years ago, could have crossed over the land bridge from asia and evolved into the smaller form sited today seems a viable explanation yet certainly only theory. This would explain the reason why indians in BC claim it's existence. I don't understand why so many people discount what the indians believe as just a mythical creature used for religious ceremonies. These people to me are the best resource for proving its existence or at least rationally admitting they probably exist which is where I stand. Whats the explanation for how hundreds of sitings occur a year?

Native accounts of Bigfoot cannot be used as evidence that this creature really existed. They seem to not have acquired any physical evidence but instead present stories and some totems that may resemble Bigfoot. It is by subjective interpretation of these things that modern people like yourself can declare that they must have been encountering the real thing.

The same situation may be occuring now. Presently we have a range of stories of encounters and some secondary evidence that could be hoaxed and totems (Bigfoot sculptures, artwork, etc.) Now imagine anthropologists and Bigfoot enthusiasts of the distant future. They will look back at the artifacts of our generation and see the stories and totems. They can say that there would not have been such a fuss going on in 2007 if those people weren't encountering real Bigfoots. If during this future time there are no longer any reported sightings folks could speculate that the creature may have gone extinct. Future Bigfooters could take confidence in the idea that Bigfoot did exist in 2007 because those people were creating little statues, drawings and paintings showing its full body in an action pose. That kind of artifact combined with the stories could only come from culture that was encountering a real animal.
 
Last edited:
This thread should be renamed, THIS IS WHAT THE NSA's WANTS YOU TO THINK REGARDING BIGFOOT, KEEP THEM TALKING OTHERWISE THEY LOSE THEIR CUSH JOBS, COMPANY CAR, COMPANY COMPUTER, KEY TO THE MEN'S TOILET, AND THEN THEY GET SHIPPED OFF TO AFGHANISTAN TO WATERBOARD AL-QEDA 24/7!
 
Native accounts of Bigfoot cannot be used as evidence that this creature really existed.
.

True, as with any native accounts. But it provides a basis.
My mother sent me (us) a nice replica artpiece this Christmas. It's a tomahawk with a 'totem' handlepiece. The creatures on the totem are real creatures of NA. Very nice. It's a recent release by Bradford Exchange, but worth noting the contemporary natural depictions opposed to 'ancient' depictions infused with cultural 'myths'. It's in the Tomahawk Journey series. I'll post a pic if anyone wishes.

Also, if there's any researchers with recommended research material (even signed) I'd be pleased to read it here. The list of recommendations, that is.
 
Native accounts of Bigfoot cannot be used as evidence that this creature really existed. They seem to not have acquired any physical evidence but instead present stories and some totems that may resemble Bigfoot. It is by subjective interpretation of these things that modern people like yourself can declare that they must have been encountering the real thing.

I enjoy swapping Bigfoot stories with Native Americans. I have so many personal experience stories, that I can almost always outdo them in that category. The difference between talking to a Native American and a pale face regarding Bigfoot, is that the Native American will not even blink, whereas the pale face will wet his or her pants, their lower lip quivers violently, they begin to stutter, crying like a baby looking for it's bottle and sweat profusely. Finally, they desparately look quickly around, then make a mad dash for the nearest rest room while grabbing the seat of their pants or dress, for some inexplicable reason. I suspect that the skeptics behave in this fashion, everytime they log onto this thread, but I can't be entirely certain.

Several outdid me. In one, they briefly had chased a bigfoot and found some bigfoot hair. They took it home and sat it on the dresser. Then they had nothing but bad luck befall them, until they disposed of the hair.

Another was on his deathbed, shortly after shooting at and possibly injuring one. He was only cured by taking him back out to the site of the shooting, and asking forgiveness by means of an Indian ceremony performed by the elders.

During the Oklahoma Bigfootville DVD, the Indian elders state that "Bigfoot sleeps in the ground". I knew that. They can do it as a Bigfoot spirit orb, in a dimension at least twice removed from our own. No big deal.
 
Last edited:
I enjoy swapping Bigfoot stories with Native Americans. I have so many personal experience stories, that I can almost always outdo them in that category. The difference between talking to a Native American and a pale face regarding Bigfoot, is that the Native American will not even blink, whereas the pale face will wet his or her pants, their lower lip quivers violently, they begin to stutter, crying like a baby looking for it's bottle and sweat profusely. Finally, they desparately look quickly around, then make a mad dash for the nearest rest room while grabbing the seat of their pants or dress, for some inexplicable reason. I suspect that the skeptics behave in this fashion, everytime they log onto this thread, but I can't be entirely certain.

Why would a skeptic behave in such a way? Generally skeptics arent afraid of the dark. Have you witnessed such a thing?

Several outdid me. In one, they briefly had chased a bigfoot and found some bigfoot hair. They took it home and sat it on the dresser. Then they had nothing but bad luck befall them, until they disposed of the hair.

Of course. I knew, before even finishing the anecdote, that the hair would somehow have disappeared.

Another was on his deathbed, shortly after shooting at and possibly injuring one. He was only cured by taking him back out to the site of the shooting, and asking forgiveness by means of an Indian ceremony performed by the elders.

You believe such a thing?

And, of course, he didnt shoot and kill the animal. He just injured it.

Damn these bigfoot hunters need to shoot straighter! All this evidence just seems to evaporate, as if by magic!

During the Oklahoma Bigfootville DVD, the Indian elders state that "Bigfoot sleeps in the ground". I knew that. They can do it as a Bigfoot spirit orb, in a dimension at least twice removed from our own. No big deal.

ummmm...... :eye-poppi
 
For Starters, you drew your line on the right hand photo to intersect lower on the knee than you did on the patty photo. I drew the yellow line in, where I see you drawing your line on the photo of Patty.

Where does that angle fit?[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_19705477289837bf64.jpg[/URL]


Here is what I did, Drewbot.

First, Dfoot's original picture...

Legs1crop.jpg


I drew 2 lines on the picture, to show the angle between the top and the bottom of the padding....

Legs1cropA.jpg



In this version, I drew the lines away from the leg, so you can see the actual edge of the padding.....and so that you can also see, very clearly, that the lines are representing the true angle of the padding.


I don't understand why you drew the yellow line where you did.
Can you explain your reasoning for it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom