Man inside Patterson film's Bigfoot suit steps forward...
- Thread starter JSFolk
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bigfoot bob heironimus
Oh, by the way...
Winston Wu told me that there have been 10,000 confirmed sightings of Bigfoot. Do the math:
One every day is 10000/365= 27.4 years
One every month is 10000/12= 833.3 years
Anyone got a copy of any Washington state newspapers for any day from around the year 1170?
(Have I posted this on another thread? Can't remember...)
Winston Wu told me that there have been 10,000 confirmed sightings of Bigfoot. Do the math:
One every day is 10000/365= 27.4 years
One every month is 10000/12= 833.3 years
Anyone got a copy of any Washington state newspapers for any day from around the year 1170?
(Have I posted this on another thread? Can't remember...)
Zep said:
Whilst I'd believe 10k sightings worldwide of superficially related creatures (ie yetis, yowies etc) I agree none are confirmed in the sense that we can conclusively provide evidence of a creature, technically he would be correct however in that they are confirmed stories of sightings (this is a smart arse comment, I know what he actually means).
Maybe he is including Native American folk tales of Wendigos & Shape-Shifters as well?
My father worked for a TV station in Yakima in the late 60's and met Patterson on several occasions when he was brought in to be interviewed about the film. My father always thought it was a guy dressed up in an ape suit but this is the first he has heard of someone making such a claim.
I have been a lurker for a long time and this is my first post. I would classify myself as a materialist and do not remember ever believing in a 'higher power'.
-kman
I have been a lurker for a long time and this is my first post. I would classify myself as a materialist and do not remember ever believing in a 'higher power'.
-kman
Good to see you posting, kman. Welcome.kman said:
I have not looked into the Patterson case as closely as some of you I'm sure, but there have been some things about it that strike me as interesting. I don't want to jeopardize my status as a good skeptic, but there are aspects of the case that just don't seem fully debunked to me. I know that doesn't prove that the image on the film is of a real Big Foot, and I would never support such a notion given only the film. Like everyone else, it's probably going to take a live animal or an intact carcass to convince me that sasquatch exists, but I've lost respect for many skeptics over the years that dismiss the supposed evidence as hoaxed without real evidence that it was hoaxed, if that makes any sense. There are two points in particular that I find especially interesting.
The first one is the idea that the image is obviously a man in an ape suit. Sure, maybe the Patterson film is a hoax. Maybe the image is of a man wearing a costume. But I recently saw a special (on the Discovery Channel I think) where a Hollywood special effects company tried to recreate the Patterson film. Now they used the same type of camera and film that Patterson used that day in the late 1960s, but they used 21st century special effects make-up techniques to create their "Big Foot". They shot from the same distance and from the same angles and at the same time of day. But when the films were compared, the 21st century recreation looked more like a guy in a costume than the 35 year-old film. Given this experiment, how can anyone conclude that the Patterson film is obviously just a guy in a costume?
The other thing that I find interesting centers around the other man (Gimlin?) that was with Patterson that day. I believe he has always adamantly professed to know nothing of a hoax. In fact, I've seen footage of him recognizing and entertaining the possibility that a trick was indeed pulled on him; that he might have been an unsuspecting patsy, though he still claims no fore-knowledge of any prank. Yet he has stated many times, and never recanted, that he was carrying a loaded, high-powered rifle on that day. Had Patterson been perpetrating a hoax at Gimlin's expense, wouldn't it seem a little foolish to send a man in an ape suit walking out in front of a very good shooter who just might believe he was seeing the trophy kill of a lifetime a few yards away?
Anyone have any thoughts, or care to share any information on these two points that I'm not aware of? As I said, I haven't researched the case in detail, so there is probably a lot I don't know.
Zep said:
Well at the time I said it I was willing to give Woo Wu, the benefit of the doubt, however a little bit of time has passed and I believe he might be a "little out there".
Phil said:
If you remember the name of the show, let us know I saw the one they did on Crop Circles with the guys from MIT and it was very convincing evidence that theres a bunch of super-geeks out there making Crop Circles (I mean you'd have to be a super-geek to make a crop circle and then seed it with magnetised Iron filings fired out of a makeshift flame thrower)
Phil said:
Maybe his friend was a really bad shot?
It was done by the BBC for Discovery Channel's television special called "X-Creatures". There is a lot of chatter between believers and skeptics about the show on the Internet, though I have not been able to find a link to the experiment film.Archangel said:
As to Gimlin being a bad shot, both men were avid outdoorsmen, and very experienced riflemen. Sure, there was a chance Gimlin would miss, but given his experience and the distance of the target, I wouldn't wager a life on it.
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
X-creatures... I remember the recriation of the footage as well as an episode with a guy saying that there is a giant monitor lizard (9- or 12-m long) living in australian outback. He never said what's these overgrown geckos were supposed to eat.
As for bigfeet, yeti and similar, I would be happy with quality footage taken by some serious high-level wildlife photographer. Think about it- these guys spend years in the wild and never managed to film or picture a mistery animal? Not even a snapshot or a quick glance?
As for bigfeet, yeti and similar, I would be happy with quality footage taken by some serious high-level wildlife photographer. Think about it- these guys spend years in the wild and never managed to film or picture a mistery animal? Not even a snapshot or a quick glance?
Kilted_Canuck
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2002
- Messages
- 1,376
Hexxenhammer said:
Yeah, Minot's a bit south of where I am, and I know how boring this country can be.
In my dad's hometown (a small central saskatchewanian farmtown), his friend snuck up on some pickicers while wearing a very large, very puffy fur coat and a gorilla mask. To this day, the older part of the town's population still believes that this incident proves there's a Sasquach in the area.
Hexxenhammer
Malleus Malefactorum
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2003
- Messages
- 2,122
Say "Saskatchewanian sasquatch" 10 times fast. Phil, can you think of a tongue twister for this?Kilted_Canuck said:
It's pretty much a tongue twister in itself, but I'll try . . .Hexxenhammer said:
Saskatchewanian sasquatch watched Sassy catch
A sassy watch won with a classy snatch
Then Saskatchewanian sasquatch watched Cassy scratch
A brassy watch donned with a sassy latch
Best I could do on short notice. Damn, tongue twisters is hard.
Hexxenhammer
Malleus Malefactorum
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2003
- Messages
- 2,122
Phil said:
