Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 5 - Page 5

The Shrike · 12th September 2015, 06:19 AM

Watched "Willow Creek" last night. 1) It's good fun; pings on all the Bigfoot lore that is part of the trope today but not in 1967. 2) My Bigfoot song is way better than Tom Yamarone's "Roger and Bob."

CORed · 13th September 2015, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

I was reviewing Argosy Magazine February 1968 and found this sidebar to the article on the PGF by Ivan Sanderson. It says that P&G measured logs and roots right there on the spot. Again we see an article that shows a Wallace Alderfoot cast as being from Patty. But this one here has a comical baby toe which sticks out all wonky from the ball.

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w...ps2s0ept44.png

My little toe looked like that once. It hurt like hell until I popped it back in.

Gilbert Syndrome · 16th September 2015, 12:13 AM

Originally Posted by The Shrike

Yes that, but I honestly had no idea that it went all the way back to Wallace. I had assumed it to be a more recent phenomenon (should it exist at all).

Ah. Still odd, however.

I think this is a version of the Anchored Cross, also known as the Mariners Cross and/or St. Clements Cross.

AlaskaBushPilot · 16th September 2015, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Patterson and DeAtley went together to meet Wallace. That's gotta be worth adding.

Yes it is, thanks and begs the question what their aim was in meeting Wallace.

It seems straightforward that co-operating on tracks would be on the agenda. Making Patty tracks consistent with the Wallace stompers.

Drewbot · 5th November 2015, 07:13 AM

Does anyone have that clip from the 70's of the guys running around the PNW with stompers on, leaving tracks on the ground?

It was kind of a documentary, with a narrator, and these guys were saying how they leave tracks all around, and they actually were running around with Stompers on?

William Parcher · 5th November 2015, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

Does anyone have that clip from the 70's of the guys running around the PNW with stompers on, leaving tracks on the ground?

It was kind of a documentary, with a narrator, and these guys were saying how they leave tracks all around, and they actually were running around with Stompers on?

I'm pretty sure you are thinking about an archive video from Canadian Broadcasting Corp (CBC) from the 70s. There are several and most feature Dahinden. One shows a guy putting on stompers and running through the woods with big leaping steps.

Drewbot · 5th November 2015, 02:18 PM

Yes. That is the one.

Wolrab · 6th November 2015, 04:11 PM

Pics or it didn't happen.

William Parcher · 6th November 2015, 06:01 PM

Here at 13:00. It's from 1976.

HarryHenderson · 6th November 2015, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Here at 13:00. It's from 1976.

An argument could be made you're SPAMMING given the ~~ridiculous~~ ludicrous amount of ads you gotta sit through to see those 10 seconds of Bigfoolery.

Pterodactyl · 6th November 2015, 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Here at 13:00. It's from 1976.

Thank you so much for posting that.

Crazy ****************.

Can anyone tell me how to rip/download that video?

William Parcher · 7th November 2015, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by HarryHenderson

An argument could be made you're SPAMMING given the ~~ridiculous~~ ludicrous amount of ads you gotta sit through to see those 10 seconds of Bigfoolery.

Ads? I've never seen an ad when watching that clip. Your computer must have a sticker attached saying "Kick Me".

Wolrab · 7th November 2015, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Here at 13:00. It's from 1976.

I was just kidding, but thanks. I believe I have seen this before.
It's like crop circles, people admit to making them, demonstrate making them, yet woosters come up with lame excuses as to why circles are magical.

Pterodactyl · 7th November 2015, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Wolrab

I was just kidding, but thanks. I believe I have seen this before.
It's like crop circles, people admit to making them, demonstrate making them, yet woosters come up with lame excuses as to why circles are magical.

Actually, the crop circles are much more impressive.

Drewbot · 9th November 2015, 05:45 AM

Here it is on Youtube at 21:07
"Ray Pickens"

Thanks Norseman!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9cXNHdH1nw

The Shrike · 9th November 2015, 01:17 PM

"Tonight on Canada's grooviest outdoors show, we'll interview a crazy loner who is clearly suffering from lead poisoning."

William Parcher · 10th November 2015, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by Drewbot

"Ray Pickens"

He immediately stopped making fake tracks on the day that he had seven pinecones whiz past his head.

Nakani · 18th November 2015, 01:23 PM

I presented this theory on the BFF and it was not well received, I want a second opinion. I was a Bigfoot believer when I first joined up, then the resident skeptics and my own observations chipped away at my belief until all that was left was the PGF. Then one day it hit me and the possibility of Bigfoot faded away.

One of the arguments is that it can't be done with sixties materials, they didn't have 4 way stretch fur cloth back then. I proposed that the suit was made with skin from a horse. I remember BH saying something about a Roger killing a horse and that the suit was smelly. If you google 'Shaggy horse breed', there are lots of good candidates, some have fur that look suspiciously like Patty's. A suit made from the hide of a freshly skinned animal would be form fitting and stretchy enough to show the movements of the wearer's muscles.

My thread in the PGF section of the BFF was called 'Nakani's PGF Bombshell' or something like that, I explained things more in depth over there (well, tried to). I was even going to build a suit but I realized it wasn't going to make a difference, so I decided not to. I couldn't justify killing something just for virtually no reason.

What are your thoughts, please don't shoot me down too hard I don't want to turn back into a Bigfoot believer.

Monza · 18th November 2015, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by Nakani

I presented this theory on the BFF and it was not well received, I want a second opinion. I was a Bigfoot believer when I first joined up, then the resident skeptics and my own observations chipped away at my belief until all that was left was the PGF. Then one day it hit me and the possibility of Bigfoot faded away.

One of the arguments is that it can't be done with sixties materials, they didn't have 4 way stretch fur cloth back then. I proposed that the suit was made with skin from a horse. I remember BH saying something about a Roger killing a horse and that the suit was smelly. If you google 'Shaggy horse breed', there are lots of good candidates, some have fur that look suspiciously like Patty's. A suit made from the hide of a freshly skinned animal would be form fitting and stretchy enough to show the movements of the wearer's muscles.

My thread in the PGF section of the BFF was called 'Nakani's PGF Bombshell' or something like that, I explained things more in depth over there (well, tried to). I was even going to build a suit but I realized it wasn't going to make a difference, so I decided not to. I couldn't justify killing something just for virtually no reason.

What are your thoughts, please don't shoot me down too hard I don't want to turn back into a Bigfoot believer.

Interesting thoughts. I don't really know if your theory is feasible or not, as I do not have any experience in animal skinning. But I do want to comment on the muscle movement put forth by BF believers. As you say, they use this to state that 4-way stretch fur material would be necessary. In my viewing of the PGF, I just don't see it. I think the so-called muscle movement is mostly pareidolia, variations in lighting, and artifacts from grainy film footage. For example, if there really were large muscles under all that fur, why is one of the largest (gluteus maximus) noticeably absent? In other words, your theory might be viable but at the end of the day I don't think it is even necessary.

eerok · 18th November 2015, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by Monza

Interesting thoughts. I don't really know if your theory is feasible or not, as I do not have any experience in animal skinning. But I do want to comment on the muscle movement put forth by BF believers. As you say, they use this to state that 4-way stretch fur material would be necessary. In my viewing of the PGF, I just don't see it. I think the so-called muscle movement is mostly pareidolia, variations in lighting, and artifacts from grainy film footage. For example, if there really were large muscles under all that fur, why is one of the largest (gluteus maximus) noticeably absent? In other words, your theory might be viable but at the end of the day I don't think it is even necessary.

I agree. When I look at the PGF I see an ill-fitting and poorly-constructed suit. It doesn't fit together well at the seams and it doesn't move well. Any claim of special technology or materials is pure hot air.

Nakani · 18th November 2015, 07:45 PM

Monza,

I think the muscle movement could be pareidolia but there does seem to be some calf and triceps movement and also some stretching between the shoulder and chest. Gifs of this are held as proof of authenticity(of course ignoring the lack of butt moment, but that's Bigfootery). I think a skin suit explains these movements nicely.

What else would a poor cowboy use to make a fur suit from? This would also explain why there was no other films, the suit was only meant to be worn once.

HarryHenderson · 18th November 2015, 11:45 PM

<retracted misposted pablum>
Not the answer you seek, but two words, the government. It's all their fault.

Gilbert Syndrome · 19th November 2015, 01:50 AM

Originally Posted by Nakani

Monza,

I think the muscle movement could be pareidolia but there does seem to be some calf and triceps movement and also some stretching between the shoulder and chest. Gifs of this are held as proof of authenticity(of course ignoring the lack of butt moment, but that's Bigfootery). I think a skin suit explains these movements nicely.

What else would a poor cowboy use to make a fur suit from? This would also explain why there was no other films, the suit was only meant to be worn once.

Tbf, the supposed calf-muscle doesn't really move in a natural way, and there's next to no corresponding movement between the glutes and the legs, essentially meaning that the butt is not natural.

They'd have needed a suit, regardless, as they were intending to make a documentary-style movie about Bigfoot. My guess is they had more than one suit, or they merely modified the existing one into what we now refer to as "Patty."

With regards to horse-hide or animal skin in general, who knows? It definitely has a certain sheen to it. Roger was an artist, and he could make all sorts of things. If there's one genuinely honest appraisal of Roger that I could give, it would be that he was a creative artist with a great imagination.

Resume · 19th November 2015, 05:36 AM

http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/2016_Reli...lier_final.pdf
This time for sure.

$6495 (based on double occupancy). How do you find another nitwit willing to shell out nearly 7 large? Well, you do get a copy of the comic book Sasquatch-Legend Meets Science, so there's that.

What a jackleg.

Resume · 19th November 2015, 05:38 AM

Wrong thread.

Cervelo · 19th November 2015, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by Gilbert Syndrome

Tbf, the supposed calf-muscle doesn't really move in a natural way, and there's next to no corresponding movement between the glutes and the legs, essentially meaning that the butt is not natural.

They'd have needed a suit, regardless, as they were intending to make a documentary-style movie about Bigfoot. My guess is they had more than one suit, or they merely modified the existing one into what we now refer to as "Patty."

With regards to horse-hide or animal skin in general, who knows? It definitely has a certain sheen to it. Roger was an artist, and he could make all sorts of things. If there's one genuinely honest appraisal of Roger that I could give, it would be that he was a creative artist with a great imagination.

It's always been my contention, how could there have not been a suit...they where making a movie about Bigfoot.
One of the first things they would have done is show off their crappy suit compared to the real bigfoot on flim.
Instead the film turned out so well they ran with "it's real" and fabricated a backstory to support it....done and done!

Monza · 19th November 2015, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by Cervelo

It's always been my contention, how could there have not been a suit...they where making a movie about Bigfoot.
One of the first things they would have done is show off their crappy suit compared to the real bigfoot on flim.
Instead the film turned out so well they ran with "it's real" and fabricated a backstory to support it....done and done!

I agree with this as well. They had a guy in an Indian costume, but didn't have a BF suit? I don't buy it.

Gilbert Syndrome · 19th November 2015, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by Cervelo

It's always been my contention, how could there have not been a suit...they where making a movie about Bigfoot.
One of the first things they would have done is show off their crappy suit compared to the real bigfoot on flim.
Instead the film turned out so well they ran with "it's real" and fabricated a backstory to support it....done and done!

Exactly, I figure that they may have had a trial-run of sorts, and got the shots they wanted with the modified suit, I feel the suit was a modification, and wrapped it up as being a real event, as opposed to a scene filmed for a reason.

Who knows if Roger had more suits, or if he used Patty, or a version of Patty, ever again. It's likely that he did, and I don't buy the excuse that "if Patty was a suit then we'd have seen it again on film."

Gilbert Syndrome · 19th November 2015, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by Monza

I agree with this as well. They had a guy in an Indian costume, but didn't have a BF suit? I don't buy it.

They definitely had a suit, or a few of them, imo. To what extent the Bigfoot would've participated in the original movie, Idk, but Roger would've have had a suit, and maybe he figured "less is more," and opted to show very little of the Bigfoot, or maybe it was supposed to feature quite a bit, but I tend to think otherwise.

I don't buy the notion that he'd have used the suit again and again, it would defeat the purpose of it looking so "good," (of course, it doesn't look that good, it's just that from a distance, used sparingly, it looks effective. This is something we see in horror movies all the time, show as little of the subject as possible unless it's necessary, a bit like "Fiend Without a Face," you don't see the creatures in question that much, but when you do, it's effective.

Speaking of Gimlin, it makes me chuckle that he's such a performer these days, as I reckon his involvement in the PGF was minimal at best... As in, Roger said "here, stick this damn wig on your head, Bob, and point that-a-way."

rockinkt · 19th November 2015, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by Nakani

I presented this theory on the BFF and it was not well received, I want a second opinion. I was a Bigfoot believer when I first joined up, then the resident skeptics and my own observations chipped away at my belief until all that was left was the PGF. Then one day it hit me and the possibility of Bigfoot faded away.

One of the arguments is that it can't be done with sixties materials, they didn't have 4 way stretch fur cloth back then. I proposed that the suit was made with skin from a horse. I remember BH saying something about a Roger killing a horse and that the suit was smelly. If you google 'Shaggy horse breed', there are lots of good candidates, some have fur that look suspiciously like Patty's. A suit made from the hide of a freshly skinned animal would be form fitting and stretchy enough to show the movements of the wearer's muscles.

My thread in the PGF section of the BFF was called 'Nakani's PGF Bombshell' or something like that, I explained things more in depth over there (well, tried to). I was even going to build a suit but I realized it wasn't going to make a difference, so I decided not to. I couldn't justify killing something just for virtually no reason.

What are your thoughts, please don't shoot me down too hard I don't want to turn back into a Bigfoot believer.

With all due respect - I think that the hide of a "freshly skinned animal" would rot and the hair slip long before a suit could be fashioned. It would be near to impossible to wear for more than a breath without retching or vomiting.

If the hide was fleshed, stretched, and then tanned in the normal fashion - it would be flexible - but not really stretchable in the way that "4 way stretch fur cloth" would be.
The cloth will stretch - but then spring back into it's original shape/size. Tanned hides will stretch - but certainly not spring back into the original size/shape.

Someone like Shrike who I'm told wears red leather pants while lecturing in homage to his idol Mike Reno from Loverboy*

can tell you that leather (hide) does not stretch easily and once stretched - is more or less permanently stretched.
Women who wear tight leather skirts are also quite aware of the problem with wearing tight hides that stretch out of shape causing a loss of allure.

*May not be true.

Drewbot · 19th November 2015, 12:49 PM

Luckily there are many, many Ornithologist lecturers who also wear tight leather pants while presenting. So you have not revealed his identity.

Resume · 19th November 2015, 01:47 PM

The problem arises when he wears the leather pants with the ostrich skin boots . . .

Nakani · 19th November 2015, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by rockinkt

With all due respect - I think that the hide of a "freshly skinned animal" would rot and the hair slip long before a suit could be fashioned.

As someone who knows what they are talking about, I can tell you that, as long as the hide has been fleshed and kept in a cool place, it will be about two weeks until it starts to turn and about three before it starts to get nasty. I guess that is a relative term though.

Quote:

It would be near to impossible to wear for more than a breath without retching or vomiting.

Maybe for city folk but growing up on the farm I doubt any of them had a problem with a bad smell. Besides one week would be plenty of time to stitch together a shirt and some leggings. Also Roger could put the pieces in the freezer as he finished them, where they would keep indefinitely until he was ready to make his movie.

Quote:

If the hide was fleshed, stretched, and then tanned in the normal fashion - it would be flexible - but not really stretchable in the way that "4 way stretch fur cloth" would be.
The cloth will stretch - but then spring back into it's original shape/size. Tanned hides will stretch - but certainly not spring back into the original size/shape.

Who is talking about tanned hides?

comncents · 19th November 2015, 03:08 PM

5 minute vid on making a bigfoot costume. Although this one is not really a serious attempt at a "real" looking costume, it shows some techniques that might have been employed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6bnZOwSSv8

I'm with eerok...not sure you can see any muscle movement or need anything other than fake fur.

As far as the possible calf muscle movement. I've thought it might be the tops of cowboy boots pushing back and forth under the suit. Just a lucky coincidence.

The Shrike · 19th November 2015, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by rockinkt

*May not be true.

Oh it's true. Turn Me Loose is an underrated masterpiece.

The Shrike · 19th November 2015, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by comncents

I'm with eerok...not sure you can see any muscle movement or need anything other than fake fur.

Ditto. For every claimed muscle movement that "works" there are two that don't. For example, we can't be distracted by something that looks like a contracting triceps in the right place but ignore the multiple donut bulges down the forearm. We can't claim that the calf flexes the right way* but ignore the strange bulge in the quadriceps.

Add one part pareidoilia to two parts grainy footage. Add motion blur. Stir in 1000 parts confirmation bias, cherry picking, and motivated reasoning. Lie your ass off. Bingo - Patty.

*I actually think the calf is a damning feature. It looks to me like it contracts when the foot lands but not - as expected - during the push off.

rockinkt · 19th November 2015, 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by Nakani

As someone who knows what they are talking about, I can tell you that, as long as the hide has been fleshed and kept in a cool place, it will be about two weeks until it starts to turn and about three before it starts to get nasty. I guess that is a relative term though.

You're not the only one with experience on this board.
How cool is cool? Got a temperature in mind? At what temperature/time does the hair start to slip if you don't salt it?

Quote:

Maybe for city folk but growing up on the farm I doubt any of them had a problem with a bad smell. Besides one week would be plenty of time to stitch together a shirt and some leggings. Also Roger could put the pieces in the freezer as he finished them, where they would keep indefinitely until he was ready to make his movie.

One week to make a full squatch suit out of "shaggy haired" untanned/unsalted horse hide?
Using what type of tools?
Where? Laying in a freezer?
Are you serious?

Quote:

Who is talking about tanned hides?

Why not talk about tanned hides? Much simpler to keep and work with. Besides - once the animal is dead the elasticity of the hide fades extremely fast so there is no advantage to not tanning the hide.
Remember - flexibility is not elasticity - which you failed to address from my original post.

The Shrike · 19th November 2015, 09:08 PM

Originally Posted by rockinkt

Remember - flexibility is not elasticity - which you failed to address from my original post.

. . . And is not established to be relevant to Roger's monkey suit.

"See that muscle bulge there?"
[Not really, no.]
"The only way that could be a suit is if it could stretch four ways."
[Well, okay, but you're basing that on the mis--]
"Four-way stretch didn't exist in 1967."
[Wait, it didn't?]
"Therefore, Patty must have been a real bigfoot."
[What about ape suits from decades earlier?]
"They're not as real-looking as Patty."
[I think some of them are even better.]
"That's because you can't see them in motion. That's the key. Patty moves."
[They were in motion pictures.]
"They don't look as real as Patty."
[Wait - ]
"Bill Munns! Bindernagle! Meldrum!"

dmaker · 19th November 2015, 09:22 PM

Wasn't Patterson an accomplished leather worker? I'm fairly sure that I read that somewhere.

Pterodactyl · 19th November 2015, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by dmaker

Wasn't Patterson an accomplished leather worker? I'm fairly sure that I read that somewhere.

Made saddles, tack, and was otherwise generally handy and artistic.

If you think about it, one of the most damning circumstantial aspects of the PGF is that the creator of the film, with his history as a con man, would be almost uniquely qualified to put on such a hoax.

How many people out there have a history of ripping people off, have written a book about bigfoot, have the leather working skills to build a suit, happen to be making a documentary about bigfoot, then luck into getting said film?

16th September 2015, 12:13 AM	#163
Gilbert Syndrome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Liverpool, UK Posts: 7,301	Originally Posted by The Shrike Yes that, but I honestly had no idea that it went all the way back to Wallace. I had assumed it to be a more recent phenomenon (should it exist at all). Ah. Still odd, however. I think this is a version of the Anchored Cross, also known as the Mariners Cross and/or St. Clements Cross.
	__________________ Generic proclamation of positivity: Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up. Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'

5th November 2015, 07:13 AM	#165
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 7,586	Does anyone have that clip from the 70's of the guys running around the PNW with stompers on, leaving tracks on the ground? It was kind of a documentary, with a narrator, and these guys were saying how they leave tracks all around, and they actually were running around with Stompers on?
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 7,586	__________________ "I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

5th November 2015, 08:46 AM	#166
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 26,087	Originally Posted by Drewbot Does anyone have that clip from the 70's of the guys running around the PNW with stompers on, leaving tracks on the ground? It was kind of a documentary, with a narrator, and these guys were saying how they leave tracks all around, and they actually were running around with Stompers on? I'm pretty sure you are thinking about an archive video from Canadian Broadcasting Corp (CBC) from the 70s. There are several and most feature Dahinden. One shows a guy putting on stompers and running through the woods with big leaping steps.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

5th November 2015, 02:18 PM	#167
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 7,586	Yes. That is the one.
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 7,586	__________________ "I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

6th November 2015, 04:11 PM	#168
Wolrab Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 4,821	Pics or it didn't happen.
Wolrab Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 4,821	__________________ "Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov

12th September 2015, 06:19 AM	#161
The Shrike Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Oklahoma, USA Posts: 5,147	Watched "Willow Creek" last night. 1) It's good fun; pings on all the Bigfoot lore that is part of the trope today but not in 1967. 2) My Bigfoot song is way better than Tom Yamarone's "Roger and Bob."

13th September 2015, 08:50 AM	#162
CORed Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Central City, Colorado, USA Posts: 10,556	Originally Posted by William Parcher I was reviewing Argosy Magazine February 1968 and found this sidebar to the article on the PGF by Ivan Sanderson. It says that P&G measured logs and roots right there on the spot. Again we see an article that shows a Wallace Alderfoot cast as being from Patty. But this one here has a comical baby toe which sticks out all wonky from the ball. http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w...ps2s0ept44.png My little toe looked like that once. It hurt like hell until I popped it back in.

16th September 2015, 10:40 PM	#164
AlaskaBushPilot Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 4,281	Originally Posted by William Parcher Patterson and DeAtley went together to meet Wallace. That's gotta be worth adding. Yes it is, thanks and begs the question what their aim was in meeting Wallace. It seems straightforward that co-operating on tracks would be on the agenda. Making Patty tracks consistent with the Wallace stompers.

6th November 2015, 06:01 PM	#169
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 26,087	Here at 13:00. It's from 1976.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

6th November 2015, 06:20 PM	#170
HarryHenderson Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: All up in your business! Posts: 1,874	Originally Posted by William Parcher Here at 13:00. It's from 1976. An argument could be made you're SPAMMING given the ~~ridiculous~~ ludicrous amount of ads you gotta sit through to see those 10 seconds of Bigfoolery.
	__________________ "If you vote for me, all of your wildest dreams will come true." - Pedro

6th November 2015, 09:46 PM	#171
Pterodactyl Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 1,280	Originally Posted by William Parcher Here at 13:00. It's from 1976. Thank you so much for posting that. Crazy ****************. Can anyone tell me how to rip/download that video?

7th November 2015, 08:00 AM	#172
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 26,087	Originally Posted by HarryHenderson An argument could be made you're SPAMMING given the ~~ridiculous~~ ludicrous amount of ads you gotta sit through to see those 10 seconds of Bigfoolery. Ads? I've never seen an ad when watching that clip. Your computer must have a sticker attached saying "Kick Me".
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

7th November 2015, 08:58 AM	#173
Wolrab Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 4,821	Originally Posted by William Parcher Here at 13:00. It's from 1976. I was just kidding, but thanks. I believe I have seen this before. It's like crop circles, people admit to making them, demonstrate making them, yet woosters come up with lame excuses as to why circles are magical.
Wolrab Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 4,821	__________________ "Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov

7th November 2015, 02:59 PM	#174
Pterodactyl Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 1,280	Originally Posted by Wolrab I was just kidding, but thanks. I believe I have seen this before. It's like crop circles, people admit to making them, demonstrate making them, yet woosters come up with lame excuses as to why circles are magical. Actually, the crop circles are much more impressive.

9th November 2015, 05:45 AM	#175
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 7,586	Here it is on Youtube at 21:07 "Ray Pickens" Thanks Norseman! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9cXNHdH1nw
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 7,586	__________________ "I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic Last edited by Drewbot; 9th November 2015 at 05:56 AM.

9th November 2015, 01:17 PM	#176
The Shrike Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Oklahoma, USA Posts: 5,147	"Tonight on Canada's grooviest outdoors show, we'll interview a crazy loner who is clearly suffering from lead poisoning."

10th November 2015, 12:10 PM	#177
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 26,087	Originally Posted by Drewbot "Ray Pickens" He immediately stopped making fake tracks on the day that he had seven pinecones whiz past his head.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

18th November 2015, 01:23 PM	#178
Nakani Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Acho Dene Koe Posts: 1,036	I presented this theory on the BFF and it was not well received, I want a second opinion. I was a Bigfoot believer when I first joined up, then the resident skeptics and my own observations chipped away at my belief until all that was left was the PGF. Then one day it hit me and the possibility of Bigfoot faded away. One of the arguments is that it can't be done with sixties materials, they didn't have 4 way stretch fur cloth back then. I proposed that the suit was made with skin from a horse. I remember BH saying something about a Roger killing a horse and that the suit was smelly. If you google 'Shaggy horse breed', there are lots of good candidates, some have fur that look suspiciously like Patty's. A suit made from the hide of a freshly skinned animal would be form fitting and stretchy enough to show the movements of the wearer's muscles. My thread in the PGF section of the BFF was called 'Nakani's PGF Bombshell' or something like that, I explained things more in depth over there (well, tried to). I was even going to build a suit but I realized it wasn't going to make a difference, so I decided not to. I couldn't justify killing something just for virtually no reason. What are your thoughts, please don't shoot me down too hard I don't want to turn back into a Bigfoot believer.

18th November 2015, 05:22 PM	#179
Monza Alta Viro Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,307	Originally Posted by Nakani I presented this theory on the BFF and it was not well received, I want a second opinion. I was a Bigfoot believer when I first joined up, then the resident skeptics and my own observations chipped away at my belief until all that was left was the PGF. Then one day it hit me and the possibility of Bigfoot faded away. One of the arguments is that it can't be done with sixties materials, they didn't have 4 way stretch fur cloth back then. I proposed that the suit was made with skin from a horse. I remember BH saying something about a Roger killing a horse and that the suit was smelly. If you google 'Shaggy horse breed', there are lots of good candidates, some have fur that look suspiciously like Patty's. A suit made from the hide of a freshly skinned animal would be form fitting and stretchy enough to show the movements of the wearer's muscles. My thread in the PGF section of the BFF was called 'Nakani's PGF Bombshell' or something like that, I explained things more in depth over there (well, tried to). I was even going to build a suit but I realized it wasn't going to make a difference, so I decided not to. I couldn't justify killing something just for virtually no reason. What are your thoughts, please don't shoot me down too hard I don't want to turn back into a Bigfoot believer. Interesting thoughts. I don't really know if your theory is feasible or not, as I do not have any experience in animal skinning. But I do want to comment on the muscle movement put forth by BF believers. As you say, they use this to state that 4-way stretch fur material would be necessary. In my viewing of the PGF, I just don't see it. I think the so-called muscle movement is mostly pareidolia, variations in lighting, and artifacts from grainy film footage. For example, if there really were large muscles under all that fur, why is one of the largest (gluteus maximus) noticeably absent? In other words, your theory might be viable but at the end of the day I don't think it is even necessary.
Monza Alta Viro Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,307

18th November 2015, 06:50 PM	#180
eerok Quixoticist Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: ON Canada Posts: 5,369	Originally Posted by Monza Interesting thoughts. I don't really know if your theory is feasible or not, as I do not have any experience in animal skinning. But I do want to comment on the muscle movement put forth by BF believers. As you say, they use this to state that 4-way stretch fur material would be necessary. In my viewing of the PGF, I just don't see it. I think the so-called muscle movement is mostly pareidolia, variations in lighting, and artifacts from grainy film footage. For example, if there really were large muscles under all that fur, why is one of the largest (gluteus maximus) noticeably absent? In other words, your theory might be viable but at the end of the day I don't think it is even necessary. I agree. When I look at the PGF I see an ill-fitting and poorly-constructed suit. It doesn't fit together well at the seams and it doesn't move well. Any claim of special technology or materials is pure hot air.
	__________________ "Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde

18th November 2015, 07:45 PM	#181
Nakani Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Acho Dene Koe Posts: 1,036	Monza, I think the muscle movement could be pareidolia but there does seem to be some calf and triceps movement and also some stretching between the shoulder and chest. Gifs of this are held as proof of authenticity(of course ignoring the lack of butt moment, but that's Bigfootery). I think a skin suit explains these movements nicely. What else would a poor cowboy use to make a fur suit from? This would also explain why there was no other films, the suit was only meant to be worn once.

18th November 2015, 11:45 PM	#182
HarryHenderson Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: All up in your business! Posts: 1,874	<retracted misposted pablum> Not the answer you seek, but two words, the government. It's all their fault.
	__________________ "If you vote for me, all of your wildest dreams will come true." - Pedro Last edited by HarryHenderson; 19th November 2015 at 12:30 AM.

19th November 2015, 01:50 AM	#183
Gilbert Syndrome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Liverpool, UK Posts: 7,301	Originally Posted by Nakani Monza, I think the muscle movement could be pareidolia but there does seem to be some calf and triceps movement and also some stretching between the shoulder and chest. Gifs of this are held as proof of authenticity(of course ignoring the lack of butt moment, but that's Bigfootery). I think a skin suit explains these movements nicely. What else would a poor cowboy use to make a fur suit from? This would also explain why there was no other films, the suit was only meant to be worn once. Tbf, the supposed calf-muscle doesn't really move in a natural way, and there's next to no corresponding movement between the glutes and the legs, essentially meaning that the butt is not natural. They'd have needed a suit, regardless, as they were intending to make a documentary-style movie about Bigfoot. My guess is they had more than one suit, or they merely modified the existing one into what we now refer to as "Patty." With regards to horse-hide or animal skin in general, who knows? It definitely has a certain sheen to it. Roger was an artist, and he could make all sorts of things. If there's one genuinely honest appraisal of Roger that I could give, it would be that he was a creative artist with a great imagination.
	__________________ Generic proclamation of positivity: Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up. Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'

19th November 2015, 05:36 AM	#184
Resume Troublesome Passenger Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 21,549	http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/2016_Reli...lier_final.pdf This time for sure. $6495 (based on double occupancy). How do you find another nitwit willing to shell out nearly 7 large? Well, you do get a copy of the comic book Sasquatch-Legend Meets Science, so there's that. What a jackleg.
	__________________ " Glory to our Allies . . . Glory to Ukraine!" President Volodymyr Zelenskyy

19th November 2015, 05:38 AM	#185
Resume Troublesome Passenger Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 21,549	Wrong thread.
	__________________ " Glory to our Allies . . . Glory to Ukraine!" President Volodymyr Zelenskyy

19th November 2015, 08:46 AM	#186
Cervelo Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 1,528	Originally Posted by Gilbert Syndrome Tbf, the supposed calf-muscle doesn't really move in a natural way, and there's next to no corresponding movement between the glutes and the legs, essentially meaning that the butt is not natural. They'd have needed a suit, regardless, as they were intending to make a documentary-style movie about Bigfoot. My guess is they had more than one suit, or they merely modified the existing one into what we now refer to as "Patty." With regards to horse-hide or animal skin in general, who knows? It definitely has a certain sheen to it. Roger was an artist, and he could make all sorts of things. If there's one genuinely honest appraisal of Roger that I could give, it would be that he was a creative artist with a great imagination. It's always been my contention, how could there have not been a suit...they where making a movie about Bigfoot. One of the first things they would have done is show off their crappy suit compared to the real bigfoot on flim. Instead the film turned out so well they ran with "it's real" and fabricated a backstory to support it....done and done!
Cervelo Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 1,528

19th November 2015, 09:02 AM	#187
Monza Alta Viro Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,307	Originally Posted by Cervelo It's always been my contention, how could there have not been a suit...they where making a movie about Bigfoot. One of the first things they would have done is show off their crappy suit compared to the real bigfoot on flim. Instead the film turned out so well they ran with "it's real" and fabricated a backstory to support it....done and done! I agree with this as well. They had a guy in an Indian costume, but didn't have a BF suit? I don't buy it.
Monza Alta Viro Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,307

19th November 2015, 09:47 AM	#188
Gilbert Syndrome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Liverpool, UK Posts: 7,301	Originally Posted by Cervelo It's always been my contention, how could there have not been a suit...they where making a movie about Bigfoot. One of the first things they would have done is show off their crappy suit compared to the real bigfoot on flim. Instead the film turned out so well they ran with "it's real" and fabricated a backstory to support it....done and done! Exactly, I figure that they may have had a trial-run of sorts, and got the shots they wanted with the modified suit, I feel the suit was a modification, and wrapped it up as being a real event, as opposed to a scene filmed for a reason. Who knows if Roger had more suits, or if he used Patty, or a version of Patty, ever again. It's likely that he did, and I don't buy the excuse that "if Patty was a suit then we'd have seen it again on film."
	__________________ Generic proclamation of positivity: Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up. Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.'

19th November 2015, 09:54 AM	#189
Gilbert Syndrome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Liverpool, UK Posts: 7,301	Originally Posted by Monza I agree with this as well. They had a guy in an Indian costume, but didn't have a BF suit? I don't buy it. They definitely had a suit, or a few of them, imo. To what extent the Bigfoot would've participated in the original movie, Idk, but Roger would've have had a suit, and maybe he figured "less is more," and opted to show very little of the Bigfoot, or maybe it was supposed to feature quite a bit, but I tend to think otherwise. I don't buy the notion that he'd have used the suit again and again, it would defeat the purpose of it looking so "good," (of course, it doesn't look that good, it's just that from a distance, used sparingly, it looks effective. This is something we see in horror movies all the time, show as little of the subject as possible unless it's necessary, a bit like "Fiend Without a Face," you don't see the creatures in question that much, but when you do, it's effective. Speaking of Gimlin, it makes me chuckle that he's such a performer these days, as I reckon his involvement in the PGF was minimal at best... As in, Roger said "here, stick this damn wig on your head, Bob, and point that-a-way."
	__________________ Generic proclamation of positivity: Scouse saying - Go 'ed, is right, nice one, boss, well in, sound, belter, made up. Usage: 'Go 'ed, lad, get us an ale in, nice one.' Last edited by Gilbert Syndrome; 19th November 2015 at 09:56 AM.

19th November 2015, 12:36 PM	#190
rockinkt Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,320	Originally Posted by Nakani I presented this theory on the BFF and it was not well received, I want a second opinion. I was a Bigfoot believer when I first joined up, then the resident skeptics and my own observations chipped away at my belief until all that was left was the PGF. Then one day it hit me and the possibility of Bigfoot faded away. One of the arguments is that it can't be done with sixties materials, they didn't have 4 way stretch fur cloth back then. I proposed that the suit was made with skin from a horse. I remember BH saying something about a Roger killing a horse and that the suit was smelly. If you google 'Shaggy horse breed', there are lots of good candidates, some have fur that look suspiciously like Patty's. A suit made from the hide of a freshly skinned animal would be form fitting and stretchy enough to show the movements of the wearer's muscles. My thread in the PGF section of the BFF was called 'Nakani's PGF Bombshell' or something like that, I explained things more in depth over there (well, tried to). I was even going to build a suit but I realized it wasn't going to make a difference, so I decided not to. I couldn't justify killing something just for virtually no reason. What are your thoughts, please don't shoot me down too hard I don't want to turn back into a Bigfoot believer. With all due respect - I think that the hide of a "freshly skinned animal" would rot and the hair slip long before a suit could be fashioned. It would be near to impossible to wear for more than a breath without retching or vomiting. If the hide was fleshed, stretched, and then tanned in the normal fashion - it would be flexible - but not really stretchable in the way that "4 way stretch fur cloth" would be. The cloth will stretch - but then spring back into it's original shape/size. Tanned hides will stretch - but certainly not spring back into the original size/shape. Someone like Shrike who I'm told wears red leather pants while lecturing in homage to his idol Mike Reno from Loverboy* can tell you that leather (hide) does not stretch easily and once stretched - is more or less permanently stretched. Women who wear tight leather skirts are also quite aware of the problem with wearing tight hides that stretch out of shape causing a loss of allure. *May not be true.
rockinkt Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,320	__________________ "Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." *Steve Earle* "I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." *Townes Van Zandt*

19th November 2015, 12:49 PM	#191
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 7,586	Luckily there are many, many Ornithologist lecturers who also wear tight leather pants while presenting. So you have not revealed his identity.
Drewbot Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 7,586	__________________ "I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker "I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325 Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

19th November 2015, 01:47 PM	#192
Resume Troublesome Passenger Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 21,549	The problem arises when he wears the leather pants with the ostrich skin boots . . .
	__________________ " Glory to our Allies . . . Glory to Ukraine!" President Volodymyr Zelenskyy

19th November 2015, 02:19 PM	#193
Nakani Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Acho Dene Koe Posts: 1,036	Originally Posted by rockinkt With all due respect - I think that the hide of a "freshly skinned animal" would rot and the hair slip long before a suit could be fashioned. As someone who knows what they are talking about, I can tell you that, as long as the hide has been fleshed and kept in a cool place, it will be about two weeks until it starts to turn and about three before it starts to get nasty. I guess that is a relative term though. Quote: It would be near to impossible to wear for more than a breath without retching or vomiting. Maybe for city folk but growing up on the farm I doubt any of them had a problem with a bad smell. Besides one week would be plenty of time to stitch together a shirt and some leggings. Also Roger could put the pieces in the freezer as he finished them, where they would keep indefinitely until he was ready to make his movie. Quote: If the hide was fleshed, stretched, and then tanned in the normal fashion - it would be flexible - but not really stretchable in the way that "4 way stretch fur cloth" would be. The cloth will stretch - but then spring back into it's original shape/size. Tanned hides will stretch - but certainly not spring back into the original size/shape. Who is talking about tanned hides?

19th November 2015, 03:08 PM	#194
comncents Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 272	5 minute vid on making a bigfoot costume. Although this one is not really a serious attempt at a "real" looking costume, it shows some techniques that might have been employed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6bnZOwSSv8 I'm with eerok...not sure you can see any muscle movement or need anything other than fake fur. As far as the possible calf muscle movement. I've thought it might be the tops of cowboy boots pushing back and forth under the suit. Just a lucky coincidence.
	__________________ WARNING - DO NOT FEED THE BLAARGers!

19th November 2015, 04:28 PM	#195
The Shrike Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Oklahoma, USA Posts: 5,147	Originally Posted by rockinkt May not be true. Oh it's true. Turn Me Loose* is an underrated masterpiece.