Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
LTC8K6 said:
You came in here talking as if you knew a lot about the issue, Melissa. Then when I mentioned some well known info, you didn't have a clue. What was I supposed to think?
Click to expand...

Before coming to JREF, LAL didn't know that P&G had tracked Patty for 3.5 miles before losing her sign on pine needles. We told her what P&G said in an early interview. Either she had never read what those guys said, or she did and it never lodged in her memory. It's funny how every word that BH has ever uttered is always front and center and ammunition to show that he is a liar.
 
For me, it's hard to believe Melissa is all into the soil composition where BF tracks were found and cast, and experimenting with track making, but doesn't know what I am talking about with Napier and Hill, etc.
 
Gah, why even worry about it? I've been tagging along with this mystery for the past three decades and I still know nothing. But then, when it comes to bigfoot, aren't we all truly uninformed?

RayG
Click to expand...

I completely agree.
 
Of course it's an act, and that is why Lu continues to be a living joke to PGF skeptics. To Pattycakes she might be considered a footsoldier that is daring enough to make a stand against skeptics. She's one of the token Kamikaze pilots. But her plane went down in the sea before it reached the deck of a ship.
 
Melissa said:
I completely agree.
Click to expand...

... and because I don't worry about the Bigfoot question, and tag along not knowing about Bigfoot and am uniformed about Bigfoot... I decided to create an internet radio show called "Let's Talk Bigfoot".

Maybe listening to the various words of different people will get us all to some sort of proof. Maybe not. The important thing is to just talk about Bigfoot because this is what we love and are addicted to. Our radio show is not set up to determine if Bigfoot is a myth. It's designed to give the microphone to those that want to talk. Talking about stuff is an intrinsically important thing for mortal beings to do that are eventually going to die and know it. You can talk about Bigfoot here. We understand.

Maybe Bigfoot is not a creature at all. Instead it's an abstract and unconfirmable entity that gives people strength and a reason to wake up each day and make some sort of soapbox stand against the evil skeptics and know-it-alls that want to take away my tomorrows. If my inner fortitude allows me to argue for Bigfoot today, then I can buy myself a tomorrow on nothing other than the need to rebut any rebuttals. Don't you see that the Bigfoot idea gives me a reason to stay alive and fight off the horrifying and very real blackness of a life that fizzles out from depression and social isolation. Bigfoot is my God. Is it yours too? Let's Talk Bigfoot.

I want to make it clear that these words are those of William Parcher, not Melissa. William Parcher, please do not "put words into the mouth" of another member. Do not personalize your argument.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
William Parcher said:
... and because I don't worry about the Bigfoot question, and tag along not knowing about Bigfoot and am uniformed about Bigfoot... I decided to create an internet radio show called "Let's Talk Bigfoot".
Click to expand...

Did someone tell you it was time to start being rude to the bigfooter? I swear you have multiple personalities. I never (unlike some) claimed to have all knowledge of bigfoot - I will leave that to you. Good lord. Do you people want to discuss the issues - or just continue to think you know all there is to know? I think you would rather discuss less and just insult people.

Just because you think you know it all - doesnt mean you do. And, this insistance that skeptics know more than bigfooters really makes you look like a fool. Humility is something you are seriously lacking, and thats sad because I think your a relatively smart person - too bad you find so much joy in making others feel inferior to you.

Is it nice on that pedestal?

I am personally thankful for those who are skeptical, but are capable of intelligent conversation free of childish insults and rants. William, you are in posession of no more knowledge than anyone else in this world, on this subject, that is the truth and just the way it is.
 
Melissa, I'm going to have to agree with WP here - perhaps not with his tone, though. :)

The footers that have posted here since I have been here, really did not seem to know as much as the skeptics did about the subject over all, and particularly about the discrepancies surrounding the making and showing of the PGF.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Melissa, I'm going to have to agree with WP here - perhaps not with his tone, though. :)

The footers that have posted here since I have been here, really did not seem to know as much as the skeptics did about the subject over all, and particularly about the discrepancies surrounding the making and showing of the PGF.
Click to expand...

Who says anyone is right? Just because you think the answers are on one side, that may not be the case. Why is one group in possession of all the correct knowledge, while one is always struggling and wrong?

You may think its funny to make "footers" feel inferior to you, but in the end all your doing is creating an even bigger divide. Researchers such as myself want to hear ideas and we want to discuss the issues surrounding what we do.. But what we dont need is the constant poo flinging - you are always right and we are always wrong. I think you would see less from the bigfooters too.

This is why I do not normally engage in these types of conversations. Someone always knows more than someone else and feels the need to rub it in everyones face - well congrats. You know all there is to know about Bigfoot, you have read every book and website out there. You have had conversations with all kinds of skeptics and bashed as many bigfooters as you could. You refuse invitations by researchers who are serious and conduct their research as scientifically as possible by stating you would rather go into the field with a known hoaxer - why, because you would hate to see might happen if you got into the field with someone who is actually serious? Being around a hoaxer for a week helps strengthen your arguement that bigfoot is not real, and anyone who looks for bigfoot is crazy?? Yeah, thats fair, but its ok, your just the kind of person MM would be happy to take money from.. LMAO.

Way to be objective (Oops theres that silly word again).

Congratulations, only one problem, you cant prove one bit of your theory that bigfoot does not exist. :) Yeah, your incredible knowledge is doing wonders for you.. lmao.
 
Melissa said:
Did someone tell you it was time to start being rude to the bigfooter? I swear you have multiple personalities.
Click to expand...

Are you now saying you are a Bigfooter? I thought you just described yourself as a neutral observer. Hello, Ms. Multiple Personalities.

I never (unlike some) claimed to have all knowledge of bigfoot - I will leave that to you. Good lord.
Click to expand...

But you must have enough firm knowledge of the PGF and surrounding testimonies to affirmatively claim that BH is a liar. So you don't have all knowledge of Bigfoot, but you do have that for the PGF?

Do you people want to discuss the issues - or just continue to think you know all there is to know? I think you would rather discuss less and just insult people.
Click to expand...

There you go. I never discuss the what's shown on PG film itself, and instead just insult people. You got me.

Just because you think you know it all - doesnt mean you do. And, this insistance that skeptics know more than bigfooters really makes you look like a fool. Humility is something you are seriously lacking, and thats sad because I think your a relatively smart person - too bad you find so much joy in making others feel inferior to you.
Click to expand...

There you go again. Parcher is a fool, so Melissa, P&G and Patty win. Bring out the trophy.

Is it nice on that pedestal?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that a view of the top of your head is nice or not.

I am personally thankful for those who are skeptical, but are capable of intelligent conversation free of childish insults and rants. William, you are in posession of no more knowledge than anyone else in this world, on this subject, that is the truth and just the way it is.
Click to expand...

I have continually mentioned that P&G said they tracked Patty for 3.5 miles in an early interview. Then they stopped talking about that. That's a change in the story, and if they were BH it would account for a lie because they made the change. At the minimum, I possess that knowledge while nearly all Bigfooters ignore or are unaware of it. It's not my own personal possession of knowledge, but at least it looks like I do know something they don't. Actually, I think many of them know it and choose to suppress it because it makes the PGF deal look more like a hoax.

Did you want to pick a fight with me?
 
Melissa:

You are not a researcher.

You have no understanding of science.

It's not up to us to prove Bigfoot doesn't exist. The non-existence of something is the default position in science.

Until it can be shown Bigfoot ewxists, there's no reason to believe it. Bigfoot does not exist. No evidence shows there is a creature called Bigfoot.

Bigfoot doesn't exist is not a theory anymore than blue-snouted puffle-flinangers don't exist is a theory.
 
Who says anyone is right? Just because you think the answers are on one side, that may not be the case. Why is one group in possession of all the correct knowledge, while one is always struggling and wrong?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about Melissa?

I'm talking about factual information. Footers that post here do not seem to know a lot of factual information that skeptics here are aware of.

Nobody said anything about right or wrong or who is correct. Strictly factual information.

When I say that Roger Patterson said he was pinned under Peanuts and bent his stirrup, and hurt his foot, that's a fact. Roger said that.

When a footer comes here and doesn't know that Roger said this, I find it odd, since the fact should come up in even casual research.

This is what I'm talking about, factual info that any bigfoot researcher should be aware of, regardless of what they believe.

Footers often seem unaware of a lot of this info when they come here, imo.
 
Last edited:
Verbatim from Sanderson's interview of Patterson. Patterson says 3:30, not 1:30. Both he and Gimlin are thrown. No mention of a bent stirrup or an injured foot or being pinned. Patterson says they had still cameras, as well.

Facts. Patterson said these things.

Subsequent events have made it clear that there are a lot of what one must call "ins-and-outs" to this story, and I therefore feel it best and only fair that I give Patterson's story first, and verbatim from my first interview. This went as follows [Footnote 36--Sanderson, Ivan T., "First Photos of 'Bigfoot', California's Legendary 'Abominable Snowman'", Argosy Magazine, February 1968; "More Evidence that Bigfoot Exists", Argosy Magazine, April 1968.]:

At three-thirty on the twentieth of October (1967) we were packing our horses back into one of the last remaining great wilderness areas, northeast of Eureka, California. Our saddlebags contained on one side rifles and grub and, on the other, ready-loaded movie- and still-cameras and other equipment. We were following a creek which had been washed out two years previously in the terrible floods that devastated most of northern California. This was some twenty miles up the access-road for logging, and about thirty-five miles in from the nearest and only blacktop road in this vast and as-yet-not-fully-mapped area of National Forest. [I have been up this Bluff Creek and, as a botanist I can tell you that it is rugged--four layers or tiers of trees, the tallest up to two-hundred feet, and a dense undergrowth. Also, the terrain goes up and down like a gigantic sawtooth. Author.]

We rounded a sharp bend in the sandy arroyo of the creek. Then it happened.

The horses reared suddenly in alarm and threw both of us. Luckily, I fell off to the right and grabbed my camera. Why? Because I had spotted what had turned our horses into mad broncos. About one hundred feet ahead, on the other side of the creek bed, there was a huge, hairy creature that walked like a man! 'Gosh darn it, Ivan', [he said] 'right there was a Bigfoot. And, fer pity's sakes, it was a female! Just wait till you see the film.'
Click to expand...

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/chapters.htm
 
Last edited:
Melissa said:
Who says anyone is right?
Click to expand...

... because Bigfoot can exist and not exist all at the same time. Let's Talk Bigfoot.

Why is one group in possession of all the correct knowledge, while one is always struggling and wrong?
Click to expand...

Maybe it's because "one group" isn't inclined to study the PGF as much as the other group. This is getting ugly because you already admitted that skeptics might (and sometimes do) know more about the PGF than arguing believers.

You may think its funny to make "footers" feel inferior to you, but in the end all your doing is creating an even bigger divide. Researchers such as myself want to hear ideas and we want to discuss the issues surrounding what we do.. But what we dont need is the constant poo flinging - you are always right and we are always wrong. I think you would see less from the bigfooters too.
Click to expand...

You see, I knew this Bigfootery thing was all about the personalities of folks and nothing to do with any real animal.

You refuse invitations by researchers who are serious and conduct their research as scientifically as possible by stating you would rather go into the field with a known hoaxer - why, because you would hate to see might happen if you got into the field with someone who is actually serious? Being around a hoaxer for a week helps strengthen your arguement that bigfoot is not real, and anyone who looks for bigfoot is crazy?? Yeah, thats fair, but its ok, your just the kind of person MM would be happy to take money from.. LMAO.
Click to expand...

But if the serious researcher provides me no evidence of the existence of Bigfoot, what am I supposed to think? Parcher, you should be happy that we found nothing. You see the reason is because if you were out with Biscardi he would have made sure you found something. But that something would be hoaxed. Because we found nothing, you should understand that we are honest, and therefore also understand that Bigfoot has a good chance of existing. Being with good people who find nothing should ease your skepticism of Bigfootery and allow you to understand why we continue to search for Bigfoot.

WTF is that? :boggled: LMAO

Congratulations, only one problem, you cant prove one bit of your theory that bigfoot does not exist. :) Yeah, your incredible knowledge is doing wonders for you.. lmao.
Click to expand...

Why am I supposed to prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist? LMAO
 
LTC8K6 said:
It makes no difference what a real bigfoot's breasts do or don't do. We are talking about Patty only. Patty's breasts are not floppy. That is a fact. Patterson says they are. That is also a fact.



That could be why I said "I think". If it was a suit, the person with the suit can sure prove soemthing. We may yet find proof that it's a hoax. There are certainly bits of film shot by Patterson that have not come to light. There's a whole reel at least. Therein could be proof of a hoax or just more grist for the mill.



I've already told you that BH is not part of my argument, though.



That's odd. I wasn't there either, and I know it. So does anyone else who reads the quotes of the people who were shown the PGF initially. Comments that are widely available, widely discussed, and well known among footers. Except you, apparently.
Click to expand...

I do see breast movement in PGF. The descriptive amount of movement is subjective and what is a little to some may be a lot to others. To Patterson's eye that may be a lot of movement. That was a time after all when women's fashions were more constrictive than they are today and we get to see "giggle" on a daily basis that would have had the culture of 1967 blushing. Yet we think little of it. (Sorry to all our female members but I mean no disrespect by the statement). Fact is the film shows what the film shows and matters none what anyone's subjective opinion is about what they see in it. Case in point I see a great deal of up and down movement in the shots where the subject is walking away and the legs can't be seen. My eye tells me from that that there is a very long stride in play. So I may describe those shots as the subject's upper body moves up and down a great deal. Now to another's eye that movement may not seem like a lot.
 
"because when it turned towards us for a moment, I could see its breasts hanging down and they flopped when it moved."

We all know what flopped means. Patty's breasts do not flop when she moves in the PGF.

Yes, they move. They are not floppy, or droopy, or pendulous, or pendant in the PGF films we have available today.

We're not talking about degrees of movement at all.
 
Melissa,

IMO, it's this kind of statement, "you cant prove one bit of your theory that bigfoot does not exist" that the real world finds ridiculous. I'm sorry but bigfoot does not exist, it has not been proven to exist by physical laws, as of today. As of today, bigfoot only exists in our minds.

m
 
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