Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
Correa Neto said:
Such a joke?

To me, it looks more like a real bigfoot (if such a thing really exists) than Patty.....
Click to expand...

For the record, this is what you are claiming looks more like a "real bigfoot" than the subject in the PG film:

Are you sure? I might have some fun with this............
 

Attachments

  • BBC bigfoot.jpg
    BBC bigfoot.jpg
    41 KB · Views: 64
  • Patty.jpg
    Patty.jpg
    7.2 KB · Views: 51
bruto said:
Why, it's Mr. Big and the kids, clear as day! But they missed Uncle George and cousin Ernie. Once you start circling, the others are obvious. The woods are full of them.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think that is what they are circling. There was a special on either Discovery or History channel a few years back and one of the interviewees was arguing that Patty's behavior was because their were offspring in the woods and she was drawing attention away from them, a la killdeer birds. I'm guessing this photo is supposed to be showing where they offspring are.
 
Huntster said:
For the record, this is what you are claiming looks more like a "real bigfoot" than the subject in the PG film:

Are you sure? I might have some fun with this............
Click to expand...

You can start your fun by showing me a real bigfoot and then comparing it with the fake ones (Patty and BBC´s).

BBC´s bigfoot has more in common with bigfoot renderings avaliable than Patty (fur color, body shape, etc.).

Now, the usual footer excuses will follow:
Sexual dimorphism, since Patty was a female, there are several different bigfeet species, etc. etc. etc.
 
Huntster said:
For the record, this is what you are claiming looks more like a "real bigfoot" than the subject in the PG film:

Are you sure? I might have some fun with this............
Click to expand...

For the record, I will say you have no proof it doesn't look like a real bigfoot, any more that the subject in PG.....


It's about time you had some fun.. We have been having lots of fun, for over 2,300 posts now..
 
Everything would be different if somebody could conclusively show that Bigfoot is not a mythological creature.
 
Correa Neto said:
.....BBC´s bigfoot has more in common with bigfoot renderings avaliable than Patty (fur color, body shape, etc.)......
Click to expand...

Unbelievable.

The BBC recreation shows a very thin figure with short arms and long legs. It has long flowing hair, usually done so by costumers to hide zippers and flaws.

While some sasquatch reports describe reddish and even very light colored fur, the vast majority of reports describe black or very dark fur.

The vast majority of reports describe a very husky, massive creature. I know of none that describe a "skinny" figure.

When I look at the BBC recreation I see the same type of figure that sasquatch hoaxers create.

When I look at the subject of the PG film I see a creature built like a bear; massive, heavy, and powerful.

It's difficult to imagine someone who claims to be of a scientific mind who is so prejudiced against a piece of evidence as to go to such lengths to try to discredit it.
 
Huntster said:
Unbelievable.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. Its hard to belive that someone actually considers PGF a worthy piece of evidence favorable to bigfoot's existence as a real creature.

Huntster said:
The BBC recreation shows a very thin figure with short arms and long legs. ...snip...
Click to expand...

AFAIK most bigfeet are not supposed to be black.
AFAIK they are supposed to have "T-shaped" torsos, something Patty has not, and BBC´s bigfoot has.
BBC's film also seems to have better detail than PGF.
Patty has a lot of "weird" anatomic features, not found in BBC's bigfoot.

Huntster said:
When I look at the BBC recreation I see the same type of figure that sasquatch hoaxers create.
Click to expand...

Yes, just like Patty.

Huntster said:
When I look at the subject of the PG film I see a creature built like a bear; massive, heavy, and powerful.
Click to expand...

I see someone wearing a costume, with a diaper-like butt.

Huntster said:
It's difficult to imagine someone who claims to be of a scientific mind who is so prejudiced against a piece of evidence as to go to such lengths to try to discredit it.
Click to expand...

First of all, prove that I am showing prejudice against PGF. And I don't need to try to discredit it. It's already discredited due to the many problems it has, already discussed here and at other places.

Prejudice what is shown by footers in respect to the people who point the weak spots in what they consider as undeniable evidence. Prejudice is what footers show when they close their eyes to the suspicious circunstances involved with what they consider "undeniable evidence", such as PGF, cripplefoot and the skookum cast.

Again, can you show us a real bigfoot, so we can compare it with Patty and BBC´s and see wich one looks more like the "real stuff"?
 
Somebody should put a standing 6.5' tall bear in frame 352 to compare to Patty. I wonder if Patty will look as big?

Maybe that walking away frame would be better. 72?... the one with the perfect foot.

How about a defensive lineman from the period?

The BBC film was not an attempt to duplicate the suit, remember.
 
Huntster said:
Unbelievable.

The BBC recreation shows a very thin figure with short arms and long legs. It has long flowing hair, usually done so by costumers to hide zippers and flaws.

While some sasquatch reports describe reddish and even very light colored fur, the vast majority of reports describe black or very dark fur.

The vast majority of reports describe a very husky, massive creature. I know of none that describe a "skinny" figure.
Click to expand...

Here's one:

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=12542
March, 2002, New Mexico
"This was not what I expected to see at all. I would put it at about 7 feet tall, skinny, gray in color, arms past the knees, like looking at the back of a grinch head-pointy."
Click to expand...

Here's another:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/roadkill.htm
January, 2002, Oregon
"Boydson says she was zooming around a corner on the freeway late one night and saw a "very, very skinny, 9 foot tall, hairy man" standing in the slow lane. She barely missed hitting the creature -- probably because it was so skinny. However, despite being super-thin, Boydson doesn't think the Sasquatch was bulimic because it looked as muscular as a well-toned athlete. However, Boydson admits her first thought when she saw how bony the Bigfoot looked was "Go eat something, Sasquatch!""
Click to expand...

And another:

http://www.gcbro.com/NCrowan001.html
1988 or 1989, North Carolina
"It was skinny, five to six feet tall, and had straight reddish hair that flaired out a little at the hands and feet."
Click to expand...

Still another:

http://www.gcbro.com/MIgenesee0001.html
October, 2005, Michigan
"Under one of the only street lights on that road, I saw a tall, lanky, black figure walking on two legs across the road. I stopped in mid-turn and stared, watching whatever it was. Even from that distance, I could tell it was tall. I would guesstimate around 7 or 8 feet tall, but I'm not sure. It looked to be very slender, with skinny legs and arms."
Click to expand...

Yet another:

http://spacepub.com/users/data/bigfoot/geo/geo.htm
March, 1974, Georgia
"The creature was estimated to be seven foot tall, and quite skinny. It had wide hips, and its arms were almost to its knees. It also had what appeared to be a sagittal crest at the top of its head."
Click to expand...

Still another:

http://www.texasbigfoot.com/Panola2.html
December, 1996, Texas
"The body was very slender and head was basically round, not pointed like the bulk of Bigfoot sightings. There was no noticeable odor. It walked on two legs, had a very long stride."
Click to expand...

Older reference:

http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/cb/1901.html
1948, Mad Lake near Leavenworth, WA
Saw thin, black-haired, 6-ft Bigfoot squatting on lake shore.
Click to expand...

Another Oregon 'thin' bigfoot:

http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/journal/snowpeak0502502.php
March, 2002, Oregon
"I was walking along a clear cut above this ridge when I saw, I suppose the legend has it BigFoot. It was a creature or whatever you like to call it standing at about 8-9 feet tall with long dark brown hair covering it's body from head to toe. It was very thin and had one of the most horrific odors that I can't even begin to explain."
Click to expand...

Another reference to 'skinny':

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=57504
"Sasquatches have been seen both with substantial girth as well as looking decidedly skinny."
Click to expand...

So, it appears some bigfoot are built like basketball players and not football players.

RayG
 
Then again, bigfoot apparently is short/tall, long haired/short haired, stinky/not stinky, fat/skinny, light/heavy/unbelieveably heavy, has 8 different kinds of feet, and I am sure I forgot several variations....
 
Lu posted this story over at BFF

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=13887&view=findpost&p=296576


"Mr. Chambers did say (in regards to the Patterson footage) that he and his crew wished they had done it, because they would have done it differently. I believe his exact words were, jokingly, 'We could've done better.' "So there you have it... We can all smile with relief that the Patterson footage is still the most convincing proof of our great folk legend's existence, and that it still has not been debunked. "I want that film to be real just as much as the next guy," Penikas said in conclusion."
Click to expand...


So let me see if I get the point here..

Chambers jokes that he could have made a better costume than what he sees in the PGF...
This is somehow support for the existence of a North American primate...
And offered as proof that the PGF is not a hoax...

Not to mention it is proof of the existence of a ' great folk legend '...

Hey! I didn't need any proof of that...


Also, it was heart warming to hear that Penikas ' wants ' the film to be real..
Why, that puts him in the same camp as Dr. Jane..
 
http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=1045

BFRO Class A report. Description mostly the opposite of Patty.

There was no associated odor with the creature. They described the hair as "dirty brown, tangled looking" and "messed up" (the father's words) and looking like it was "in dreads" (the son's description). Both witnesses said no facial details, such as eyes, ears , nose or mouth were visible due to the hair hanging down into its face. The father estimated the body hair to be about 8" long. The arms hung to below knee level. The father estimated the weight to be 300+ pounds and described the build as "bigger than the biggest football player", but not fat. Neither could see anything to indicate gender, the son assumed it was male. The father said the creature's stance was "very upright, not hunched over, almost at attention".

Both said that the creature quietly walked backwards until it came to the cedar where it turned and re-entered the thicket. The father described the creature's gait as being "just like a man".
Click to expand...
 
MullensRent2.jpg


Let's not forget rant Mullins and his sets of wooden feet and his story.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/mullens.htm
 
LTC8K6 said:
There was no associated odor with the creature. They described the hair as "dirty brown, tangled looking" and "messed up" (the father's words) and looking like it was "in dreads" (the son's description). Both witnesses said no facial details, such as eyes, ears , nose or mouth were visible due to the hair hanging down into its face. The father estimated the body hair to be about 8" long. The arms hung to below knee level. The father estimated the weight to be 300+ pounds and described the build as "bigger than the biggest football player", but not fat. Neither could see anything to indicate gender, the son assumed it was male. The father said the creature's stance was "very upright, not hunched over, almost at attention".

Both said that the creature quietly walked backwards until it came to the cedar where it turned and re-entered the thicket. The father described the creature's gait as being "just like a man".
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

This is a positive confirmation of father and son hicks.
 
Murphy has already been shown to wrong about the flexible foot. We have seen the effect created while wearing a shoe, and I have no doubt you can get a "flexible foot" print with a piece of wood.
 
RayG, you can be a pain, LOL...

I nearly burst in to laughter when I read your collection of skinny bigfeet sighting reports.

Why don't you leave these "inconvenient details" aside?
 
Diogenes said:
Lu posted this story over at BFF

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=13887&view=findpost&p=296576





So let me see if I get the point here..

Chambers jokes that he could have made a better costume than what he sees in the PGF...
This is somehow support for the existence of a North American primate...
And offered as proof that the PGF is not a hoax...

Not to mention it is proof of the existence of a ' great folk legend '...

Hey! I didn't need any proof of that...


Also, it was heart warming to hear that Penikas ' wants ' the film to be real..
Why, that puts him in the same camp as Dr. Jane..
Click to expand...

In your quote-mining you neglected to mention the context.


Gigantofootecus had posted this:


"My guess is this is one of the reasons you don't show your own suit in motion. Not to suggest that you couldn't pull it off, but rather you're giving due credit to the quality of the suit used in the PGF. Have you concluded by now that if this was a suit, it was created by a 60's makeup artist, namely John Chambers and/or associates? The more the PGF is analyzed, the less I feel that Roger Patterson would have created a suit this sophisticated. Certainly not out of horsehide over muscle layers and all the rest."

And soarwing this:

"Does a home-made horsehide bigfoot suit or ANY 1967 suit do this?

Let's see a horsehide suit show this type of APPARENT detail.

Shazam!

Here we have the "guy in the suit" simulating the PGF.
Who's living in fantasy land again?"


I posted obits and references to the interview in which Chambers denied any involvement. That was the point.

Landis evidently started the rumor, or at least repeated it publicly. Mark Chovinsky never interviewed Chambers, yet there are some who still trot out the rumors that Chambers built the "suit" and even the Minnesota Iceman. The fact that Chambers denied any involvement doesn't seem to have made the rounds.

I'm sure you all have had fun for 2300 posts with misinformation, quote-mining, ridicule, arguments that are so ludicrous they can't even be called "weak", and persistant myopia. I may start using some of the more inane comments from this board in my sig line on BFF where most sceptics at least make good points and don't confuse ridicule with debate.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom