Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
mangler said:
Not one piece of evidence that I know of is incontrovertible. I think everyone here would love to hear/see this objective evidence you speak of. BTW all of Meldrums evidence is subjective. It is simply how he interprets the information that makes him different.

Bigfoot research is poor science, if science at all.

So you believe we have an unknown or unclassified species that roams the earth. Would I be correct in assuming that you see it as an unclassified primate? Which order would this primate have come from? Do you have any evidence that is not speculative or subjective? The fact is we don’t have an unclassified or unknown species; the fact is at this point in time we have no species at all.

Is this non-existent species nocturnal, diurnal or crepuscular? Do you have any objective evidence to prove your hypothisis, or, is this also simply speculation? Could you please explain how a nocturnal animal could have diurnal traits and how these traits would pertain to this non-existent species? Is it not true that apes are sight-oriented, that facial expressions play an important role in their social lifestyle, how do you incorporated this trait into a nocturnal lifestyle? How many nocturnal primates are there? Do you believe that this non-existent species is going nocturnal (recently) like the owl monkey, or do you believe that this nocturnal lifestyle came to be lets say 250,000 years ago? What are your thoughts on its olfactory system? Objective evidence please?

Could you please explain their social structure, are they nomads, do they live in family units, do you have any objective evidence in regards to these questions?

What about these nests I keep hearing about? These nests must be built somewhat like the great apes, would this be correct? Now, if this non-existent species has a home range of say 5000 sq. miles in which it forages there would be nests in this home range, correct? Actually there would be many, many nests, if they are at all like the great apes, is this not correct? I mean if we were comparing this non-existent species to great apes there would be thousands of these nests, right? Wouldn’t a family unit of five, say one male, three females and a juvenal build maybe between 40-80 nests a month, I mean if we were somewhat comparing them to great apes? We are still somewhat comparing them to great apes, right? BTW, what is the average size of these nests?

Is there any objective evidence what-so-ever in regards to food sources of this non-existent species?

Do you have any objective evidence in regards to these films and/or videos that keep popping up on the internet? We have to agree on this one, that they certainly are not definitive proof of this non-existent species existence, correct? In yet you believe this Patterson film is of a real live bigfoot, correct? You realize that these calculations and the analysis that was made on the PGF is pure speculation, right? Are you saying that there is absolutely no way that this could be a man in a suit? Could you please explain how the baseline data for this analysis was obtained?

Unfortunately people are accidentally as well as deliberately misled all the time in this arena. There are many that want to screw with you and many that are, for lack of a better term, eagerly awaiting it. It’s a perfect match.

m :bike:
Click to expand...

The only good evidence is best obtained on an individual basis in the field, at night, with no gun in your pocket, with no flashlight in your hand, but with night vision to verify that the source of loud bipedal footsteps in the darkened forest, is not a deer, elk, bear or cougar.

No skeptic in his right mind, would ever admit to being caught in such a situation.

Myself, on my very first night of calling in Bigfoot with alleged Bigfoot calls,
1. I called in two likely Bigfoot that ran at me through thick brush, single file, at night, performed a dimension change at about 35 yards out, with one eventually getting as close at 10 feet, but likely in a dimension twice removed from ours.
2. Then, I triggered a Bigfoot to charge me for 600 yards from across a clear cut, whereupon it broke off the charge at about 50-70 yards out when I flipped on my camcorder, as it then changed from the dimension once removed from ours, to a dimension twice removed from ours. It was invisible the entire way, but was tearing up everything in the clear cut.
3. Then I called in 3 Bigfoot for the night shift tribal officer on an Indian Reservation, where they were first heard perhaps 200 yards out in a dimension once removed from ours, running at us single file through dense brush, then they climbed a near verticle dirt bank at night in a dimension twice removed from ours, then fanned out in front of us at 20 feet away in dense brush without moving a single branch or twig. This was ultimately observed with 3rd generation night vision, to verify that no movement occurred to the branches most likely to move. We also called in and scared off a 4th Bigfoot, and last heard it running away going downhill. That Bigfoot had taken up an observation post from a fully exposed tree trunk mound, at 35 yards away and absolutely nothing could be seen from that location while he was observing us. I have found and cast Bigfoot casts nearby, at a later date.

So all that skeptics need to do to turn them into believers, is obtain adequate field experience. Except they will not be caught dead in the conditions conducive to loud Bigfoot coming to within a few feet.

So we have a standoff. Photographic evidence will never be accepted. Audio evidence is not good enough. Anecdotal evedience is not good enough. And actual field experience will never happen because the skeptics don't have the rocks for it. Which is a good old fashioned Mexican Standoff! But the fact is, we do have an unclassified but discovered species. Society is however living in denial of the existence of that species, as well as dozens of others.
 
Last edited:
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....

McClarinPatty1a.jpg



As a sidenote....Jim McClarin is taller than Bob Heironimus....and comparisons of Bob and Patty, in which an image of Bob is sized so that he's equal in height to Patty, are bogus comparisons...in terms of comparing their body masses.

Bob would have required a LOT of (stiff) padding to fill out Patty's massive body.

And remember, folks, stiff padding doesn't like to do this...

Legripple222.gif


It really doesn't!
 
Last edited:
Correa Neto said:
Because in 1970 physicists never stated that Bigfoot is both real and inter-dimensional...Oh, kids are pretty aware of the differences between reality and fantasy! More aware than you, apparently.
Click to expand...

Lets see if Correa is living in a fantasy world or living in reality. In order for Correa to be able to positively have knowledge that his statement is correct, he would have had to been both at all places and at all times during 1970. Since this is a physical impossibility by a mere mortal that was not Santa Claus, his statement is therefore blatantly false. Yet he stated it as being true. Correa is therefore providing written evidence here of both being caught in a falsehood (tell me it isn't so) and being caught living in a fantasy world. A pro-bigfooter double bagger. Posters are tired of reading that same old ,same old from Correa all right, but Correa apparently cannot figure that out.
 
Hey Sweaty, still sweat'in to the oldies, eh?

The McClarin argument was shot down long ago.

Green shows McClarin walking a path in which he's further from the camera than Patty. How do we know this? By looking at the rest of the footage from... JOHN GREEN.

Taken on the same day, it shows McClarin and company carefully trace Patty's steps. With McClarin actually following Patty's true steps close to the log we can see the version most people cling to for comparison might not be an accurate guide.


Use your photoshop and overlay the stump. When you match perfectly to Green's footage of McClarin actually walking in Patty's real path you'll get this result. (*Obtain this footage from Sasquatch Odyssey if you like)


And here's Jim McClarin VS. Jim McClarin! Yes, he looks like a tiny child next to himself. Yet BOTH bits of film were shot the same day from the same position by Green. All the McClarin on the right has to do is take a few sidesteps to his right and he can match the height of... himself.


So... if you can't comprehend the earlier pics that demonstrate and describe what you are seeing with Patty's leg, then there is nothing anyone can do for you. You'll continue to see with your imagination and block out what you don't want to know.

The type of foam padding we are talking about is not stiff - btw - but I've already show you that in earlier posts.

The hair bouncing with the bending foam/wrinkling skin as the foot stomps down is all that you are looking at. It's not real.

I just thank God Patterson didn't film a Unicorn or my horse would really hate me about now.:)
 
Last edited:
No human can fake a 41 INCH STRIDE WITH 2000 LBS PLUS WEIGHT FOR DEPTH.

Cannot be done for more than 2 steps even with 500 lbs.
Click to expand...


Monstro, I bet that even Jon Beckjord knows that just about anyone can imitate that with a couple of wooden feet, a hammer, and some burlap to wrap around their own shoes.

Only a fool would think it was difficult to do, and Beckjord is not a fool.
 
manofthesea said:
Do you suggest that maybe it was the raven?
Click to expand...
Woosh! Right over your head. Apparently the point eludes you. No, I do not suggest Thunderbird was the raven. I suggest *gasp* Thunderbird was the Thunderbird. As in a mythological creature for which a living animal is not necessary.

See, the other guy said this:

One tribe dresses as animals and all the animals are known creatures except the sasquatch or buk'wus as they call them. They just consider it another primate and think nothing strange about its existence.
Click to expand...
Snuau was referring to the Kwakwaka'wakw (also known as the Kwaikutl). The implication is that they don't have mythological creatures and dress only as animals they knew, including bigfoots. That is why I mentioned the mythological Thunderbird. Here's some information for you (bolding mine):

The thunderbird's name comes from that common supposition that the beating of its enormous wings causes thunder and stirs the wind. The Lakota name for the Thunderbird is "Wakį́yą," a word formed from "kįyą́," meaning "winged," and "wakhą́," "sacred." The Kwakwaka'wakw (Kwakiutl) called him "Jojo," and the Nuu-chah-nulth (Nootka) called him "Kw-Uhnx-Wa." The Ojibwa word for a thunderbird that is closely associated with thunder is "animikii", while large thunderous birds are "binesi." It is described as being two canoe-lengths from wingtip to wingtip, and it creates storms as it flies. Clouds are pulled together by its wingbeats, the sound of thunder is its wings clapping, sheet lightning is the light flashing from its eyes when it blinks, and individual lightning bolts are glowing snakes that it carries with it. In masks, it is depicted as many-colored, with two curling horns, and sometimes with teeth within its beak.

Depending on the people telling the story, the Thunderbird is either a singular entity or a species. In both cases, it is intelligent, powerful, and wrathful. All agree that one should go out of one's way to keep from getting thunderbirds angry.

The singular Thunderbird (as the Nuu-chah-nulth believed) was said to reside on the top of a mountain, and was the servant of the Great Spirit. The Thunderbird only flew about to carry messages from one spirit to another.[citation needed] It was also told that the thunderbird controlled rainfall.

The plural thunderbirds (as the Kwakwaka'wakw and Cowichan tribes believed) could shapeshift to human form by tilting back their beak as if it were only a mask, and by removing their feathers as if it were a feather-covered blanket. There are stories of thunderbirds in human form marrying into human families; some families may trace their lineage to such an event. Families of thunderbirds who kept to themselves but wore human form were said to have lived along the northern tip of Vancouver Island. The story goes that other tribes soon forgot the nature of one of these thunderbird families, and when one tribe tried to take them as slaves the thunderbirds put on their feather blankets and transformed to take vengeance upon their foolish captors.
Click to expand...

And as for the Buk'wus mythical creature that is being hijacked by footers to support there fantasies:

From the Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture:
Like the Dzoonokwa, Bukwus is a wild creature of the woods. Described as a "chief of the ghosts", he tempts travellers to eat his food, which transforms them into wild spirits like himself. The Bukwus dance is performed during the Tlasula.
Click to expand...

https://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/collections/ethnology/collections/display.php?ID=93120

From northwestcoastnativeartists.com:

Bukwus, the wild man of the woods, is a supernatural ghost like figure. He is associated with the spirits of people who have drowned. He lives in an invisible house in the forest and attracts the spirits of those who have drowned to his home.

Bukwus also tries to persuade humans to eat ghost food so that they will become like him. The Bukwus was a significant character for the Kwakiutl people.
Click to expand...

http://www.northwestcoastnativeartists.com/artists/symbolsdetail.php?recordIDSymbolsDetail=008

So much for just another primate of whom's existence nothing strange is thought. See, here's the problem. Footers like to toss crap like this out there as though it's established fact. Time and again it's left to skeptics to rid them of their misconceptions and false assumptions. Usually it's all for naught as the bigfoot fans have no intention of abandoning their preconceived notions and beliefs. And yet they fail to see the irony in telling us non-believers that we are naive, ignorant, or in denial.
 
Thanks for the info about the McClarin footage, Dfoot. I'll have to get the Sasquatch Odyssey dvd, and check that out.


As for these statements by you....

... if you can't comprehend the earlier pics that demonstrate and describe what you are seeing with Patty's leg, then there is nothing anyone can do for you. You'll continue to see with your imagination and block out what you don't want to know.
Click to expand...


Actually, Dfoot...I have no trouble comprehending things...but I am having a little trouble seeing :eye-poppi your animated gif....

Micro1.gif


I had a look at it with my binoculars....but still wasn't able to get any useful DATA, or useful measurements out of it.

How about we do this, Dfoot...... first you present some actual data, and then you can insult my intelligence, if I'm not able to accept or understand the data.


The type of foam padding we are talking about is not stiff - btw - but I've already show you that in earlier posts.

The hair bouncing with the bending foam/wrinkling skin as the foot stomps down is all that you are looking at. It's not real.
Click to expand...


Can you demonstrate that, with an animated gif which clearly shows that? (Preferably something not requiring binoculars. ;) )
 
SweatyYeti said:
Can you demonstrate that, with an animated gif which clearly shows that? (Preferably something not requiring binoculars. ;) )
Click to expand...

Dfoot, would you say that you qualify as an expert in the field of Costumes, Costume design, or any other related field?

If the answer is 'yes', Then we should be able to take your word for it as an expert.

We are expected to accept dermal ridge speak from a fingerprint expert, and MTBreak speak from a primate foot expert, why don't isn't your opinion as a costume expert accepted by the PGF Elite?
 
Last edited:
Drewbot wrote:
If the answer is 'yes', Then we should be able to take your word for it as an expert.
Click to expand...


The way discussion boards work, Drewbot....is that people who register as members of a board, and then post on the board, making claims on the board....should SUPPORT their arguments on the board, with something more than "take my word for it".


If Dfoot can post insults...then he should also be able to post something of SUBSTANCE (As I do). Something more than microscopic animated gifs which demonstrate nothing.
 
Much Ado About....

kitakaze said:
Woosh! Right over your head. Apparently the point eludes you. No, I do not suggest Thunderbird was the raven. I suggest *gasp* Thunderbird was the Thunderbird. As in a mythological creature for which a living animal is not necessary.

See, the other guy said this:

Snuau was referring to the Kwakwaka'wakw (also known as the Kwaikutl). The implication is that they don't have mythological creatures and dress only as animals they knew, including bigfoots. That is why I mentioned the mythological Thunderbird. Here's some information for you (bolding mine):



And as for the Buk'wus mythical creature that is being hijacked by footers to support there fantasies:

From the Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture:

https://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/collections/ethnology/collections/display.php?ID=93120

From northwestcoastnativeartists.com:



http://www.northwestcoastnativeartists.com/artists/symbolsdetail.php?recordIDSymbolsDetail=008

So much for just another primate of whom's existence nothing strange is thought. See, here's the problem. Footers like to toss crap like this out there as though it's established fact. Time and again it's left to skeptics to rid them of their misconceptions and false assumptions. Usually it's all for naught as the bigfoot fans have no intention of abandoning their preconceived notions and beliefs. And yet they fail to see the irony in telling us non-believers that we are naive, ignorant, or in denial.
Click to expand...

Silly argument. Are you saying that you believe in all of the myths literally?
 
SweatyYeti said:
The way discussion boards work, Drewbot....is that people who register as members of a board, and then post on the board, making claims on the board....should SUPPORT their arguments on the board, with something more than "take my word for it".
Click to expand...
A statement regarding the protocols of a discussion board... very interesting. Any thoughts on evasion?

Maybe you can provide us with something more than the "take my word for it" you've provided thus far when being asked to define the 'realism' that you apply to Patty.

Maybe you can offer something beyond an expression of amusement and wow us with an explanation of why my 'no' answer regarding the leg question is so wrong.

Otherwise, when you make posts like the above it just looks like more of your hypocrisy.
 
SweatyYeti said:
Drewbot wrote:

The way discussion boards work, Drewbot....is that people who register as members of a board, and then post on the board, making claims on the board....should SUPPORT their arguments on the board, with something more than "take my word for it".

If Dfoot can post insults...then he should also be able to post something of SUBSTANCE (As I do). Something more than microscopic animated gifs which demonstrate nothing.
Click to expand...

You have not shown one item that makes the idea that Patty is real, seem more likely. Dfoot has shown padding that creates the same effect, he has spent money to recreate it, and time to tape it and download it, it seems like heap-more effort and results than you have shown.
 
Something else for Sweaty to dodge:
SweatyYeti said:
The fact remains, Greg.......no comparable films, videos, or photos anywhere near as convincing, or as ambiguous as what's on the PG film.

All the others are instantly recognizable as a man-in-a-(shaggy) suit.
Click to expand...
Why is my Harley Hoffman video easily recognizable as a man in a shaggy suit?
 
Drewbot said:
You have not shown one item that makes the idea that Patty is real, seem more likely.
Click to expand...

I've shown specific, scientific analysis of Patty's leg and Dfoot's padded leg.

Your opinion of whether or not it makes Bigfoot "more likely to exist" is absolutely 100% irrelevant.....as is my opinion, and everyone else's.

If you think there is a flaw or a mistake in my analysis.....feel free to point it out.....with SPECIFICS.

If you can't do that.....then your comments mean nothing to me, Drewbot.

Dfoot has shown padding that creates the same effect, he has spent money to recreate it, and time to tape it and download it, it seems like heap-more effort and results than you have shown.
Click to expand...

I've presented analysis....with measurements. That is what scientific analysis is composed of.
Dfoot's little microscopic pictures and animated gifs do not qualify as 'scientific analysis', unless and until they're backed-up with either clear, unambigouous comparisons, and/or measurable data.

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....

Well, here's some data.
First, the angle between the front and back side of Patty's thigh, when the leg is off the ground, is approx. 25 degrees....

PatLeg1lined.jpg



The angle of the padded leg, in the same position, is only about 10 degrees...the lines are much closer to parallel....

PadLegs1crop1.jpg



I extended the lines on both legs just to make it easier to see the significant difference in the angles....so readers don't have to dig out a protractor and measure them.

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. :)
Click to expand...
 
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?
 
Last edited:
SweatyYeti said:
I've shown specific, scientific analysis of Patty's leg and Dfoot's padded leg...
Click to expand...
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.
 
SweatyYeti said:
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....
Click to expand...
Your entire joke you call an analysis is based on a personal opinion, Sweaty. Here it is:

SweatyYeti said:
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. :)
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

This isn't contemporaneous, but...

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

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....
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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...
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

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

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.
 
AtomicMysteryMonster said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Drewbot said:
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]
Click to expand...


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. :)
 
kitakaze said:
You absolutely in no way have shown any scientific analysis that makes Patty being a bigfoot more likely than a man in a suit.
Click to expand...

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

Your understanding of what constitutes scientific analysis is deeply flawed.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.

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

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

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?
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...


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

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.
 
snuau said:
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?
Click to expand...

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!
 
William Parcher said:
Native accounts of Bigfoot cannot be used as evidence that this creature really existed.
.
Click to expand...

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.
 
William Parcher said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
historian said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

historian said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

historian said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!

historian said:
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.
Click to expand...

ummmm...... :eye-poppi
 
Drewbot said:
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]
Click to expand...


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