Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 5

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot

Very serious investigators. A dog, a gun, and look what expert trackers. Don't those tracks look amateurish?

The tracks are hilariously bad. And they flew in for them...with a dog...

Wallace must have split his pants from doubling over and laughing.

Then Roger gets this great bigfoot movie, and no footer bothers to even go to the site for over a week.

Only one footer bothers at all, and it's only Titmus and his brother in law 9 days later.

They flew in, with a dog, guns, and cameras, for those goofy tracks, and then crickets for the Patty crossing...no interest in that site.

[Pterodactyl]

Love seeing the split ball tracks.

Also, there is an excellent account (way prior to his death) of Ray Wallace in Robert Michael Pyle's "Where Bigfoot Walks" that should erase any doubt in anyone's mind about anything Wallace was ever involved in.

[zooterkin]

Now I'm at a keyboard, here's the GIF of a stabilised Patti:



(From reddit.)



(ETA: I may be going out on a limb here, but it looks like a bloke in a gorilla suit to me.)

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Is Pattie a Muslim Sasquatch woman (Sasquaw?!?) with a veil on? Cuz it can't be a dude in a suit with a ski mask on.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot

Very serious investigators. A dog, a gun, and look what expert trackers. Don't those tracks look amateurish?

Who would go to the trouble to fake something that is so obviously fake?
Therefore, they must be real..


Green got all blustery when confronted with the Wallace cloggers, declaring " Do you think I would be stupid enough to fall for that? "

Well.... Yes..

[The Shrike]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Now I'm at a keyboard, here's the GIF of a stabilised Patti:

Still crazy, after all these years.

[Apology]

Originally Posted by John Nowak

And where would an orca hide anyway? It's not like they can just dive underwater or something.

I'm pretty sure one of the footers on this very forum said that there were no good photographs of Bigfoot because they are only visible for "a second or so." Crimeny. That's more air time than a sea lion will give you.

https://bsccollateral.smugmug.com/By...20103030-L.jpg

Are you sure that's not Nessie or Champ? I mean, you might have forgotten that you took that picture in Scotland. Nessie has that effect on some people.

BTW Bill Munns was on Coast to Coast tonight and he is STILL BUTTHURT about that spanking we gave him so many years ago. He gave us a shout-out for being closed-minded skeptic meanies. I got quite a few chuckles out of it.

[John Nowak]

Originally Posted by Apology

Are you sure that's not Nessie or Champ? I mean, you might have forgotten that you took that picture in Scotland. Nessie has that effect on some people.

Nah, haven't been to Scotland. That was Kangaroo Island, in Australia.

Granted, it's not a razor-sharp image but it's identifiably a sea lion, and not, say, a seal (although that is a matter of a pinniped). Also, note that the bottom fin is sharper than the upper fin, because the animal is turning and you get speed blurring on the fastest moving parts of the animal. I've never noticed that effect on a Bigfoot picture, which mostly just seem to be out of focus.

[OntarioSquatch]

Bob Heironimus trying to show people that he was the man in the "suit"

[Resume]

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

Bob Heironimus trying to show people that he was the man in the "suit"

http://i.imgur.com/IGjw4wY.jpg

You need the original moth-bitten monkeysuit to do a proper re-creation, and that thing's long gone.

Doesn't matter though as the world knows it's a guy in a suit.

The non footie world, that is.

[OntarioSquatch]

The point is that even with today's superior design and technology, they can't re-create her. Look how flat the breasts are.

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Looks about as good as the PGF to me.

[OntarioSquatch]

That's like seeing the Earth from space and saying it looks flat because the truth about the Earth being round would be too hard to accept for some deep and unknown psychological reason.

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

The point is that even with today's superior design and technology, they can't re-create her. Look how flat the breasts are.

What a crock. Just because this particular attempt has a few differences doesn't mean they "can't recreate it". The PGF is a ridiculous joke.

The worst part is the ludicrous discrepancies between what the PGF implies and what the campfire stories imply.

On the one hand we have a monster of incredible size and strengths, capable of bounds of 60 feet, effortless pig tossing, supernatural stealth and virtual invisibility, barring the odd blurry glimpse; never seen long enough to take a decent picture; leaving no scat or hair, no decent tracks, no dead bodies, etc.


On the other hand, we have a film, shot by a man on his first attempt with a rented camera, of a sasquaw casually strolling along, with no apparent apprehension of the dude filming. "She" turns around, has a look, and moseys on like nothing weird is happening.

This suggests a clear choice between gaming and stupid gullibility on the part of the bleevers. Not much wiggle room there.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

The point is that even with today's superior design and technology, they can't re-create her. Look how flat the breasts are.

You've been shown time and again that equal, if not better monkey suits pre-date the pattysuit by decades. Your refusal to acknowledge that is intellectually dishonest, but par for the course.

At any rate, there is no monkey to match that monkeysuit movie in the Bluff Creek ecosystem, in the natural history of North America, or in the fossil record of North America. In other words, what many footers consider he best evidence for footie, the pgf, is just another campfire story that the world passed by nearly fifty years ago. Another footer fail I'm afraid.

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

That's like seeing the Earth from space and saying it looks flat because the truth about the Earth being round would be too hard to accept for some deep and unknown psychological reason.

What does that even mean?

[Resume]

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

That's like seeing the Earth from space and saying it looks flat because the truth about the Earth being round would be too hard to accept for some deep and unknown psychological reason.

No, it's acknowledging that one monkeysuit is as good as the next given that none represent an actual North American ape, as there is no such thing, other than us.

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

Bob Heironimus trying to show people that he was the man in the "suit"

http://i.imgur.com/IGjw4wY.jpg

If only we could have seen Patty that well...

[OntarioSquatch]

Originally Posted by Resume

You've been shown time and again that equal, if not better monkey suits pre-date the pattysuit by decades. Your refusal to acknowledge that is intellectually dishonest, but par for the course.

I've seen nearly every suit that's ever been discussed here and it's clear to me that Patty isn't a suit.

Originally Posted by Maurice Ledifficile

On the one hand we have a monster of incredible size and strengths, capable of bounds of 60 feet, effortless pig tossing, supernatural stealth and virtual invisibility, barring the odd blurry glimpse; never seen long enough to take a decent picture; leaving no scat or hair, no decent tracks, no dead bodies, etc.

Out of thousands of reports, you cherry-pick the ones that are hard to believe. If you take the time to read what Bigfoot reports are usually like, you'll see that they're actually much less eventful than the PGF.

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

If only we could have seen Patty that well...

Some of the frames I've posted have been pretty close. I've noticed that the clearer the quality is, the more real she looks.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

I've seen nearly every suit that's ever been discussed here and it's clear to me that Patty isn't a suit.

Then you need glasses, and remedial courses in logic and psychology, covering logical fallacies, cognitive errors and biases. Busy beaver you'll be.

Quote:

Out of thousands of reports, you cherry-pick the ones that are hard to believe. If you take the time to read what Bigfoot reports are usually like, you'll see that they're actually much less eventful than the PGF.

Reports are GiGo: garbage in, garbage out. Unverifiable, unrepeatable, unfalsifiable, and dismissable. Useless.

Quote:

Some of the frames I've posted have been pretty close. I've noticed that the clearer the quality, the more real she looks.

Yes, that's called confirmation bias.

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

Out of thousands of reports, you cherry-pick the ones that are hard to believe. If you take the time to read what Bigfoot reports are usually like, you'll see that they're actually much less eventful than the PGF.

No. The majority of the reports are of quick glimpses, supposedly because they are so elusive. And you have to pick and choose reports. Otherwise you can't decide on their attributes, given the wide range. Are they six foot tall? Are they nine or ten feet tall? Can they or can they not jump sixty feet? Make up your mind.

If the majority of bigfeet behave like Patty, then they should be easily filmed at virtually any time. If you can rent a camera and find one on your first time out, then they are not so fast, or stealthy.

If they behave more like uber-elusive alien hybrid creature from the stories, then the PGF makes no sense. Seriously. The film and the stories don't jive.

If they existed, they would either be like the thing in the PGF, or like the thing in the campfire stories. They clearly can't be both.

[OntarioSquatch]

Confirmation bias is the tendency to interpret evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories. It doesn't mean that the interpretation is wrong.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

Confirmation bias is the tendency to interpret evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories. It doesn't mean that the interpretation is wrong.

Your interpretation of what's depicted in the pgf directly conflicts with objective reality and is incorrect.

As I said, remedial courses.

[OntarioSquatch]

Originally Posted by Maurice Ledifficile

No. The majority of the reports are of quick glimpses, supposedly because they are so elusive. And you have to pick and choose reports. Otherwise you can't decide on their attributes, given the wide range. Are they six foot tall? Are they nine or ten feet tall? Can they or can they not jump sixty feet? Make up your mind.

Height varies from individual to individual. When it comes to jumping ability, there's not enough data on jumps to say for certain. There's only a few reports that mention something like Bigfoot jumping.

Originally Posted by Maurice Ledifficile

If the majority of bigfeet behave like Patty, then they should be easily filmed at virtually any time. If you can rent a camera and find one on your first time out, then they are not so fast, or stealthy.

Freak incidents in nature happen. One shouldn't cherry pick those as a way to discredit what happens 95% of the time.

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

Confirmation bias is the tendency to interpret evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories. It doesn't mean that the interpretation is wrong.

If the interpretation is not wrong, then there's no need to bring up confirmation bias. An interpretation is correct if it follows the evidence. Confirmation bias comes into play when interpretation ignores relevant evidence.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

Height varies from individual to individual. When it comes to jumping ability, there's not enough data on jumps to say for certain. There's only a few reports that mention something like Bigfoot jumping.

GiGo. "Reports" are useless and summarily dismissed

Quote:

Freak incidents in nature happen. One shouldn't cherry pick those as a way to discredit what happens 95% of the time.

There is no way to discern what is what is not credible in a bigfoot "report." They are useless, and summarily dismissed.

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

Height varies from individual to individual. When it comes to jumping ability, there's not enough data on jumps to say for certain. There's only a few reports that mention something like Bigfoot jumping.





Freak incidents in nature happen. One shouldn't cherry pick those as a way to discredit what happens 95% of the time.

Well, what does happen 95% of the time? Are they stealthy, near-invisible creatures, or are they easy to film on your first day out? Are they uber-apprehensive, or do they stroll along unperturbed by a jackass with a camera?

Jumping 60 feet is not a freak incident that just happens. If it happens once, that means they can do such a thing.

[OntarioSquatch]

Originally Posted by Maurice Ledifficile

Well, what does happen 90% of the time? Are they stealthy, near-invisible creatures, or are they easy to film on your first day out? Are they uber-apprehensive, or do they stroll along unperturbed by a jackass with a camera?

They're intelligent, paranoid and extremely stealthy, but not invisible. Clear and up close sightings are extremely rare and 99% of the time they happen inside a forest and don't allow for people to get any kind of good footage. It usually happens very quickly and witnesses with no experience are usually too shocked to worry about getting pictures or video. If it happened frequently enough, we would probably have more footage like the PGF.

Originally Posted by Maurice Ledifficile

Jumping 60 feet is not a freak incident that just happens. If it happens once, that means they can do such a thing.

One or two reports of Bigfoot doing something unique doesn't necesarily mean they're doing it. What if those several reports are hoaxes?

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

Originally Posted by Maurice Ledifficile View Post
If the majority of bigfeet behave like Patty, then they should be easily filmed at virtually any time. If you can rent a camera and find one on your first time out, then they are not so fast, or stealthy.

Freak incidents in nature happen. One shouldn't cherry pick those as a way to discredit what happens 95% of the time.

I just noticed what part of my post your above response was answering.

Are you saying that they normally are super-seekret stealthy athletes, and that the one on the film, casually strolling, not apprehensive and definitely not stealthy, just happens to be that way by freak occurrence? Also, that no one else can film one today because these incidents don't usually happen?

Because if that is what you're saying, it makes absolutely no sense, surprise, surprise. Now the impossible coincidence of finding one on your first try with a camera becomes even more impossible, since you have to show up when the one slow bigfoot (of all the fast, stealthy ones in history) happens to be exactly where you are.

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

They're intelligent, paranoid and extremely stealthy, but not invisible. Clear and up close sightings are extremely rare and 99% of the time they happen inside a forest and don't allow for people to get any kind of good footage. It usually happens very quickly and witnesses with no experience are usually too shocked to worry about getting pictures or video. If it happened frequently enough, we would probably have more footage like the PGF.



One or two reports of Bigfoot doing something unique doesn't necesarily mean they're doing it. What if those several reports are hoaxes?

Then do you not see how the PGF does not jive with the statements in your first paragraph?

So now the 60 foot jumps are hoaxes? Why are they "Class A" reports, then? are the Nawackos not doing their job?

[OntarioSquatch]

Roger and BobG came around a bend when they spotted Patty. She didn't walk out in front of them like most people think. She was also bending down at the creek so there was no way she could have heard them either.

Originally Posted by Maurice Ledifficile

So now the 60 foot jumps are hoaxes? Why are they "Class A" reports, then? are the Nawackos not doing their job?

I don't know if they're hoaxes. The point is that we don't know.

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

Roger and BobG came around a bend when they spotted Patty. She didn't walk out in front of them like most people think. She was also bending down at the creek so there was no way she could have heard them either.



I don't know if they're hoaxes. The point is that we don't know.

So now we can sneak up on them? how come nobody else does? This is entirely ludicrous. You absolutely cannot say that R&B suprised a sasquaw, walking around with film equipment and whatnot. She then, of course, just moves along at a casual pace, turns around for a look, and goes on her merry way.

I say the reports and the film don't jive one bit. You are doing nothing to refute this.

[OntarioSquatch]

Originally Posted by Maurice Ledifficile

So now we can sneak up on them? how come nobody else does?

I've never heard of anyone successfully sneaking up on one. In Roger's case, he wasn't expecting to see Patty on the other side of that bend.

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

I've never heard of anyone successfully sneaking up on one. In Roger's case, he wasn't expecting to see Patty on the other side of that bend.

So Roger sneaks up on Patty, on his first time out with a rented camera, but you've never heard of anyone sneaking up on one. Okay. Makes sense.

The film and the campfire stories don't jive. Not one bit.

[barehl]

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

Bob Heironimus trying to show people that he was the man in the "suit"

You need to have a fair comparison. This is with the suit at the same size as the Pattysuit figure in Zooterkin's gif above. You did intend to be fair, didn't you?

[Cervelo]

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

The point is that even with today's superior design and technology, they can't re-create her. Look how flat the breasts are.

Yes he did fail to recreate the gravity defying boobs. Roger did a much better job with his suit. Not sure why Roger went to the trouble to give Patty rediculous giant gravity defying boobies?

Maybe he was influenced by fashion trends at the time or his own wishes.


He had plagiarized the image in the past...so maybe that was the model for his movie costume


And the little grand larceny charge over the rented camera, curious that he rented it in May for only two days...I guess the first suit attempt didn't look so good

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

Bob Heironimus trying to show people that he was the man in the "suit"

http://i.imgur.com/IGjw4wY.jpg

Heironimus does the Patty walk so well that you'd swear it was him in the PGF. But his aging physique has changed his shape and his center-of-gravity, and possibly his gait - so that is a factor. He now has an old man's pot belly and any costume must accommodate that. Patty doesn't have a protruding belly, but then Heironimus didn't have one either back in 1967.

Morris obviously did not do a very good job with this costume. It doesn't even seem to be a determined replica, but rather something similar. He said that he had to create it on a short deadline right around Halloween which is his busiest season. The point being that he thinks he could have done better if he had more time.

The most striking difference is also an important one. This costume is red while Patty is black. Ok, so what, we can still see it as it is and imagine that it should be black? Well, it matters a lot because the red-colored fur shows contours, shadows and other details in different ways than black fur would. It creates differences of detail that are visible and distracting, so to speak. Red fur causes you to see too much and see too clearly as compared to black fur.

The Morris costume worn by Heironimus in your photo is a poor attempt at a recreation. It still counts as a recreation but we can also say that it could have been so much better. It's intellectually dishonest to say that the Patty costume cannot be recreated even in this day. I don't see why it couldn't be recreated to an acceptable degree. It shouldn't be expensive concerning the materials used but there would be considerable time spent on design, construction, alteration, testing, etc.

It's obvious that there is not much incentive for anyone to do it. "Hollywood" has created good Bigfoot costumes but they aren't intended to look like Patty.

[OntarioSquatch]

Originally Posted by Cervelo

He had plagiarized the image in the past...so maybe that was the model for his movie costume

It makes sense that people are seeing Sasquatch that look exactly like Patty. It's to be expected. It's only ever an issue in the minds of people who desperately want to believe that there's no such thing.

Originally Posted by William Parcher

The most striking difference is also an important one. This costume is red while Patty is black. Ok, so what, we can still see it as it is and imagine that it should be black? Well, it matters a lot because the red-colored fur shows contours, shadows and other details in different ways than black fur would. It creates differences of detail that are visible and distracting, so to speak. Red fur causes you to see too much and see too clearly as compared to black fur.

Patty's color was actually brown and she really only appears black in the high quality copy of frame 352 that MK Davis got from Patricia Patterson.

[William Parcher]

If I was going to hoax a Bigfoot sighting I'd say that the Bigfoot looked very much like Patty. My fake report would be accepted and with an extra dash of credibility because it looked like Patty and Patty is real.

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Originally Posted by OntarioSquatch

It makes sense that people are seeing Sasquatch that look exactly like Patty. It's to be expected. It's only ever an issue in the minds of people who desperately want to believe that there's no such thing.

This is getting old as an argument. Nobody "desperately wants to believe" that footies don't exist. When a preposterous concept has nothing but anecdotes for evidence, it doesn't take much to figure out it doesn't exist.