Defending Patty [P/G Film]
Editor’s Note: Michael Higgins is 28 years old, Texas born, Oklahoman. He is an advocate and a firm believer of the Squatch. He has witnessed one of the big guys or gals near a powerline trail in Honobia, Oklahoma. Michael is a realism artist interested in doing sasquatch sketches for eyewitnesses. You can visit his blog at okiesquatchartist.blogspot.com.I get irritated when people call the Patterson-Gimlin Footage a hoax. It was never proven to be a hoax. Time & time again, people try to disprove it. I've even heard multiple times, "You have to prove to the skeptics that its real." Blah blah. In the words of Matt Moneymaker, "Wrong." The sour skeptics, most often, are trying to prove that Patty isn't real.
The new Tom Biscardi movie is a waste of film. I don't even plan on seeking out how to watch it and I can already make that determination. Money dictates a lot in the Bigfoot Community (i.e. The Ketchum Report, Tom Biscardi). Money, at times, lessens credibility.
There's a number of reasons why the PGF is not a hoax. Without getting all "sciencey" on everyone, here they are (and there's probably more than I'm giving):
1. That is not a mask. Take a look at the cranium of a modern human. It DOES NOT SLOPE. The brow ridge runs directly into the forehead. Patty's brow ridge slopes immediately after the brow ridge. Keep in mind that she has hair covering most of her face, including the brow ridge which making it seem higher than it actually is. Her head has a sagittal keel. Take a look at archaic human skulls. Perfect resemblances of Erectus, Florensiensis, or Heidelbergensis and even some Austrolopithecuses.
2. Sure, the gait can be duplicated. But in such a fluid movement in a DRIED UP CREEK BED? I doubt it. Patty moves gracefully through the creek bed. I honestly couldn't see a person walking through a rocky creek bed so gracefully. Impossible? No. Plausible? Also no. I've walked through plenty of creek beds. At times, its not easy.
3. Muscle definition. Come on, you can see the lats! For the anatomically illiterate, the latissimus dorsi are the large muscles on the back, below the traps. Patty has some lats that would make some body builders jealous! Look at the traps also! I mean come on, she almost puts Bill Goldberg to shame!
4. As grainy as the video is, you should still be able to see any overlap of a suit and possibly even a zipper seam. You can't. Who is really going to think of such things in the late 60's? Star Wars was about 10 years out. Planet of the Apes? Really has no resemblance. I mean, Patty is also pretty much flashing us. I very highly doubt that anyone creating such a suit would even think to put breasts on it.
5. I wanna go back to the helmet in a mask theory. That's just the DUMBEST THING I'VE EVER READ!
6. There are two things that would prove this was a hoax. 1. A handwritten note or memoir from Roger Patterson saying, "It was a hoax." 2. Carbon dating a suit that puts it in 1967 or earlier with the suit having the same anatomical features as Patty. Good luck with that.
7. Patty is the real deal. Countless people recall that what they see bears a striking resemblance to Patty. The gait matches that of eyewitness accounts. The skull structure is perfect. Are you telling me that all these eyewitnesses are full of it? Haha! No.
The Patterson-Gimlin Footage remains inconclusive to many. For those that have seen-its vindication. Remember folks, this video falls into the categories of "It wasn't proven to be real" but "It wasn't proven to be a hoax either." The truth is, for the skeptics, it will never be real, until proven. Which is fine. For those that have seen however, it's very real. It will probably never be proven a hoax. But one day, it will be proven as the real deal.
I agree with some of the points raised here. As with any unproven phenomenon, there are those involved who are unethical liars who are out to make a buck or two out of people's gullible acceptance of lies as truth. Just look at religion, for example.
ReplyDeleteI haven't researched this video in great depth and I am not a professor of zoology or human evolution, so my observations are purely unscientific and my argument is a lay perception.
But as a simple observer, one thing doesn't seem real to me and that is the gluteus maximus of patty. Homo Sapiens developed their asses (!) as we evolved to become stealth runners in order to hunt, escape prey, travel etc. because of this, we have quite muscular, distinctively shaped backsides. Other primates and apes do not have the same bahookies as we do. But Patty's is huge and not too dissimilar to our own (not talking personally here) and I wonder why, if her gait is so different to ours, does she have a similar ass? Also, why isn't she using it as nature intended and getting the hell out of there? It seems that she's lumbering along minding her own business.
It doesn't add up.
Also, if this was a suit, it could be a two piece with a bottom half and top half. Each time I watch this clip, I'm sure I can see a slight distinction between the two materials above her right buttock. The fur above this buttock seems to lie in a different direction to the other fur/hair on the rest of her body.
Also, as well as a large ass, Patty has large reasonably pert breasts (every guys dream - tits and ass) but why? There don't seem to be any youngsters and she doesn't seems to be obviously pregnant. We all know, or the females amongst us do, that without a good fitting over the shoulder boulder holster, your breasts are never going to look like that. Unless Patty is a Bigfoot centerfold.
Apologies if I am being glib, but I don't understand how we can argue that this film is true when there are so many questions still to be answered.
"I wonder why, if her gait is so different to ours, does she have a similar ass?"
DeleteHer gait is more similar than you might think. It's similar enough for it to be considered a man in a suit by people. But if some of the rumors about DNA are to be believed, then it's really no surprise she is so similar. My non-biased opinion has been it's not BobH in a suit. It's not even a suit at all.
I have seen, literally, thousands of naked women. There are as many different types of boobs and asses as there are women. That part of your argument is just pointless. Patty is a real living, breathing creature.
Deleteits a relic that is nothing more than an excercise in ocd. move on....
DeleteThis was mentioned before on this site, go to http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.ca/2011/11/breakdown-of-patterson-gimlin-footage.html
DeleteThe glutes are what helps support a bipedal torso, her upper body is quite massive, so they are going to need large glutes to keep that big torso upright, especially when powering through steep terrain.
ReplyDeleteAs for her behaviour I would probably describe it as " assertive", she calmly distances herself from the threat. What is it they say about sharks? The best thing to do is to stay calm and swim slowly in the other direction without thrashing about which triggers a predator instinct. I think that's what she's doing, running away might trigger a chase/hunt which is the last thing she needs.
As for the brests they look pretty saggy to me.
Ok, I take your point about the glutes although I'm not quite convinced. I'll do some research for the paper that puts forward the theory that glutes were made for running. I feel a Nancy Sinattra sing coming on.
DeleteBehaviour wise, still not convinced. I'm afraid. Why isn't she running to the nearest tree and 'peeking' behind it. As 'evidenced' in so many of the clips I've seen of recent BF sightings.
Look at some of the footage of the until now undiscovered human tribes in the forests of Brazil. In comparison, To the females, Patty's busom is pert! ;)
Disagree with the GM argument above. Scientists have discovered that our butts act as a trunk stabiliser during endurance running and did not necessarily develop to enable us to balance our bodies to walk.
DeleteTherefore, Patty's very large butt does not make sense in an animal which walks in much of the evidential footage, including this clip.
The large butt doesn't make any sense? Look at the size of her upper body. Then take into account that they probly squat for any number of reasons-females probly squat to urinate and have bowl movements, sasquai in general may squat to crouch, squat when eating, etc. How do you tone up your buns? By squatting. What if she had carried before? Now you have to think about the extra weight from the baby. We dont know how long a sasquatch gestation period is. What if shes just slightly obese? There are any number of variables that could explain Pattys large buns.
DeleteHey Okie. Of course a large muscular butt would be very good thing for a creature such as this to have. The more muscular the butt, usually the more athletic a person is and sprinters put a lot of effort into strengthening this part of their frame.
DeleteChuck
How I tone my buns is my business ;) however, your argument about Patty having a large butt to help her squat is very funny. You get a large butt by sitting for long periods and being inactive. The butt on Patty does not look toned at all and it looks like it's synthetic. As said before, a large muscular behind comes from running for long periods.
DeleteA large butt to help her squat? I dont think thats what I said. I did say that her large posterior could be attributed to squatting. Of course, couple with hiking up steep terrain would also do the trick especially for something so heavy.
DeleteWhile we're on the topic of the ass. Why doesn't her ass flex or even "move" for that matter? On the flipside, near the infamous frame where it turns to look at Patterson, the ass section shifts, just like you'd expect some sort of padding to do. Another thing is the horizontal lines that are visible on both hips, to me, that indicates that its the material scrunching up.
DeleteI want to believe its the real deal but those things above that I question coupled with the facts that he was filming a documentary, was out of money, he had drawn a creature identical to the subject in the film prior is just too much information for me to believe its legit. There are other things that hold me back but I'd be typing for a long time and I don't have the time to do that at the moment.
On MK Davis' youtube channel Greenwave2010fb, he has a clip showing and proving her butt does actually move. It's curious anyway, how skeptics think it's anything strange worth even paying attention to when everything else on her body's clearly vibrating and moving like you just couldn't do in stand alone costumes not even ten years beyond 1967.
DeleteWhy didn't she run for the nearest tree and start peaking? apparently the nearest trees had no escape route, why would she trap herself and then try and hide in a very obvious hiding place. If you run away your showing weakness, typical prey behaviour, I'm picking our ancestors would fill a fleeing bigfoot full of spears being used to hunting big game as they were. Calmly (but purposefully) striding away says that she is not being threatening nor being threatened.
DeleteIf it was fake they could've filmedmore natural looking behaviours and said they were hiding in the bushes. They could've filmed hours of footage if they wanted, so why not?
Since this humanlike species most likely is an unknown hominin and no wild animal her behavior makes perfect sense, had she run she'd probably been followed. She showed them who's boss by giving them the eye and calmly but resolutely walking away.
DeleteAll this talk about glutes and boobs, I'm gonna need some lotion and a tissue!
DeleteIs the area in the film an actual creek bed or does it just show remnants of a flood?
ReplyDeleteGimlin called it a creek multiple times in one interview
DeleteMike these are your opinions. As far as most anthropologists are concerned, this film ceased to matter after the Canadian scientists gave it the thumbs down 2 weeks after it was shot. There are 1 or 2( to my knowledge) academic publications where it is assumed the subject is a real animal. There are 0 grant applications to the NSF or any other org requesting funding to look for the object in the footage.
ReplyDeleteThese FACTS will likely remain unless there are some unforeseen advances in bio-mechanics and film analysis.
People see what they want to see. I see what looks like a hood line on Patty's back. That would indicate a costume.
ReplyDeleteWhat you see there, is a perfectly normal thick hair line down the back of a primate even hairy men of our own species have those.
DeleteJesus Christ.. YOU CAN SEE THE MUSCLES PEOPLE! They can't make stuff like that NOW with all the technology in the world. No one could make a suit like that back then. It's that simple. Get a grip people.
ReplyDeleteThe calf muscle movement is compelling, and a poster on BFF and Rand showed some frames that indicate finger movement. I get the impression the subject has "mass" or I get a sense of "heaviness"(hard for me to describe). If its a fake its a damn good one, or somehow the blown up version makes it more realistic, where I would guess the opposite would happen.
DeleteMost people including many bigfooters don't know that much about the physical build of primates or how we humans differ from the other great apes in limb length, so many people falsely assume it must be the easiest thing in the world to fake bigfoots if you only have a tall man dressed up.
DeleteThe opposite's actually more correct, it'd be easier with a shorter man since you still need that longer torso upwards. Star Wars or King Kong a good decade after this or Harry and the Hendersons two decades on all three showed our physical limitations in portraying other bipedal primate creatures realistically.
In fact, all these years later nothing's changed since tall humans basically are all legs and that's a disadvantage when faking sasquatches.
es he can, its called cgi and the had it then.
DeleteThey did not have CGI then, wtf. LOL
DeleteLOL The closest thing to cgi was Star Wars and it didn't come out for another 10 years.
DeleteTrue, the points he raises are mostly opinions. However, it says something that technology has improved by leaps and bounds, allowing this film to be scrutinized six ways from Suday, and it STILL hasn't been shown to be fake. In fact, the techno advancements have only enhanced the possibility that this is REAL. If one takes into account the tracks Patterson plastered from this creature, the depth of the prints indicating a HEAVY individual plus the evidence of the mid tarsal break, and couples that with the obvious musculature and physical aspects of the creature in the film, it all adds up to something fairly impossible for two simple cowboys to hoax. Occams razor will tell you the simplest explanation, when you add in all these factors, is that this film shows a REAL creature unknown to science.
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree with you, but I don't count. Perhaps further advances and Munns type studies will encourage more anthropologists to apply the razor that way. Thats why I disagree with people who say the film is just a litmus test or relic.
DeleteThere is absolutely no robust evidence that this creature is the real deal. And fortunately, in the world of anthropology and academic research we have now moved on from cries of please believe me because I say so.
DeleteRobust research approaches and methods which gather sound qualititative and quantitative ddata pulped with DNA sampling will be the only way of proving this animal's existence. Until then, any analysis of this footage is only a matter of unproven opinion.
@ 7:17...Footprints are evidence. So are fingerprints. It's hard to fake being 600-800 lbs. The tracks went deeper than the horses. You can put a suit on, but you can't move gracefully, while faking being 800 lbs. Mid tarsal break mechanics in the prints is evidence. these tracks went on for quite a ways. You're so removed from the real world, living inside your head, you've forgotten that humans used to make a living reading print evidence. Your powers of pattern detection wouldn't keep you alive in hunter gatherer days.
DeleteMaybe not, but I know how to conduct research and triangulate research methods in an attempt to leave no doubt about my analysis of the evidence I've gathered.
DeleteThis is very much the real world of legitimate and robust research. Casts can be faked. So can film. End of story.
To James. Bob Gimlim also jumped off a stump I believe with the heel of his cowboy boots and could not make the same impression depth but got close. Monster quest did an experiment to find what the weight would be do make an equivalent track and it took appx. 1000 lbs of force. Your points above are well received.
DeleteChuck
To anon @ 9:36:
DeleteIf you want to talk about about how to conduct research as if all those investigating Sasquatch are just some ignoramuses with no scientific background, then you obviously are someone with no knowledge of those currently involved in or having been involved in researching Sasquatch. I believe DOCTOR Jeff Meldrum is someone that know a thing or two about proper research methodology. Also, one of the more compelling individuals I have seen research Sasquatch prints was Jimmy Chilcutt, a fingerprint analysis expert who has worked with the FBI and DEA. Chilcutt took on analyzing Bigfoot prints hoping to debunk the whole thing, but ended up finding such unique print patterns in the casts he analyzed that he became a believer in Sasquatch.
While the scientists and academics that have researched Sasquatch may be few and far between, those that have done their research know what they are doing. If you were so good at doing research I would think you would have done some and found out about these individuals before making your ignorant statement.
Few and far between. You've said it all.
DeleteIt's because the majority of scientists are too worried about their reputations. The number of those researching means nothing, it's the credibility of those that are that means everything. You think Oxford would be involved in a DNA study of Sasquatch if they didn't think it was worth their time and resources?
DeleteSo right. Not only will this DNA thing eventually set the record straight and prove the species real, we even have the trolls basically admitting it's real by their mere presence here.
Deletemeldrum is a hack
DeleteC'mon 3:43, that is not true. The fact he published a graduate level text for Springer-Verlag is alone reason to admit he is respected and is well versed in his field. That's a no-joke house and books are probably authored by invitation.
Delete@9:36...The burden of proof is on the person making the statement. Defend your premise. Here's what you don't do: describe how the dozens of tracks that require 800 lbs of pressure can be faked, by a man in a suit. How is it done? Recreate the mid-tarsal break mechanics within the same tracks while you're at it. Throw in the unique dermal ridges with living, healed sworls, that run in the opposite direction of humans. I'll believe you if you can do this or show where anybody has done this. You're uninformed. You're apparently mentaly lazy as well. You say tracks can be faked? In what context? Show how to fake the footprint evidence made by the creature in the PG film, or show how anybody has done it. It can't be done. The PG film animal corroborates the track evidence left behind. Triangulate these facts and figure out how to fake the tracks, a plain and simple concept, even for you. If you can't, nor can anybody else, then what's left is obvious: a living 800 lb animal, walking bipedally, gracefully, quickly, that is unknown to science. It is what it is. The best evidence in the PG film are the tracks left behind by the big fuzzy girl. Don't get sidetracked by the hair/suit debate. If the "man in the suit" is faking, how did he create fresh prints that require 800 lbs, that continue for a long ways?
DeleteJames, how do you rule out the possibility the tracks were not left by the subject of the footage,but planted before or after the shoot?
DeleteWhat I mean is, are you sure the tracks at the Patterson site are the ones with ridges and break details? We cant see in the film footprints being made so how can we know?
DeleteLook here for your answer aout how those prints were made http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.ca/2011/11/breakdown-of-patterson-gimlin-footage.html
DeleteThanks again, I know its late but I also found a feet fight on the BFF. Google "Pattys feet and the foot prints". Also in "Ichnotaxonomy of Giant Hominid Tracks in North America" there is a section on who cast which prints and when.
DeleteThe tracks were too deep to have been made by fake feet, cowboy boot prints barely showed up.
DeleteI always leaned to the side that this was a legitimate film of a yet unclassified creature.
ReplyDeleteThe clincher was Munns work that simply overlaid a human over the creature and showed that there is no possible way that it is a human in a suit as the joint locations do not align (knee to hip to ankle etc.).
Skeptics please tell me how that may be hoaxed ?
Munns report is extensive and full of a lot of technical jargon that I do not fully understand. If ever a person was credentialed to make such an analysis, this man is. He also worked with a first generation copy that Patricia Patterson lent him as he promised her his work would not harm the film. If folks are interested in determining the authenticity of Patty then his report is must reading. His conclusion is biological creature, not human, and 7' 6" height.
DeleteChuck
Costumes are designed by nature to distort human appearances and proportions.
DeleteYou know not all humans have the same proportions right?
DeleteFooters just ignore things like these
Alpha, your not taking into account some of the variables(height of camera, distance to Patty etc) are estimates and have a margin of error that propagates through the calculations. When I read his report, I don't expect to see conclusion of 7'6'', it probably will say 7'6'' plus or minus something.
DeleteIf costumes are designed to distort then how come every bigfoot besides patty suck. Wait I'll tell you why, because they have no idea how bigfoots are supposed to look at all in the first place nor could they produce a good one even if they did know due to that old hurdle called human build.
DeleteProblem for the jackass claiming he's inside patty is we know how he looks ie looked then, which was just like every other tall man. The very fact the guy says it's him discredit him right there off the bat all in one go he's just too dumb to see it himself, same with his supporters whether inside the movie industry or outside. We know it couldn't be him when he's built perfectly normal long legged like every tall man, the worst thing you could be trying to fake a sasquatch.
Delete"I get irritated when people call the Patterson-Gimlin Footage a hoax."
ReplyDeleteLOL
Typical dreamer footer.
PLEASE DONT TALK BAD ON THE BELOVED HOLY PGF!!!!!!
2 minutes research into the PGF, and for 99.99% of people its clearly a hoax. For the rest of the people they cling on to hope of something fantastical in their otherwise dull lives.
In your dreams yeah. Typical troll dreamer.
DeleteWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! Its a relic... it doesnt matter, idiots....
Delete1. That is not a mask.
ReplyDeleteSorry the detail in the film is not enough to prove it is not a mask.
2. Sure, the gait can be duplicated.
You answered your own question. The creek was cleared out from floods, easy for anyone to stroll through. Certainly isnt rough terrain.
3. Muscle definition.
Once again far too low resolution in the film to jump to that conclusion.
4. As grainy as the video is, you should still be able to see any overlap of a suit and possibly even a zipper seam.
You can clearly see flaws in the suit including the thigh subduction, something not seen in any living animal. And the static diaper butt... LOL.
5. I wanna go back to the helmet in a mask theory. That's just the DUMBEST THING I'VE EVER READ!
Its not as dumb as saying 2 cowboys, one a known conman happened to film a bigfoot that looks exactly like the bigfoot the conman previously drew in his book. Yes people actually buy into this. LOL.
6. There are two things that would prove this was a hoax. 1. A handwritten note or memoir from Roger Patterson saying, "It was a hoax." 2. Carbon dating a suit that puts it in 1967 or earlier with the suit having the same anatomical features as Patty. Good luck with that.
This could easily be solved if gimlin just admitted it. But he enjoys the bigfoot conventions and when he states how he and roger were the only people there that day and gets a standing ovation. LOL footer circle jerk more.
7. Patty is the real deal.
Thats a pretty wild claim when you look at the evidence. You have nothing. Nothing. Burden of proof my friend, its on you.
Over and Out
Lol wow! You just solved the whole PGF mystery with that retort! I'm now accepting it as a hoax! Dammit I'm one ignorant human being!...NOT. Do you have nothing better to do than crawl all over this blog whining about the burden of proof? Does it really matter THAT much to you? Really? You wanna disprove sasquatch that bad? You may be the only human being that truly can't see muscle definition. Or that doesn't believe Pattys booty has plenty of explanations. Or that a human skull couldnt fit in such a mask. Or how bout the fluidity at which she walks in that gait? I could go on. What are you scared that sasquatch does exist? Do you feel threatened by the existence of such a creature roaming the woods? Is that why you keep coming on here-to keep telling yourself that they dont exist? Thats certainly what it seems like to me! Over and out!
DeleteWhoa, whoa, whoa with tantrum. No one is saying that Sasquatch don't exist. I mean, we live in an age where we are oblivious to the natural world and we rely very much on what other people tell us. If a researcher comes back from deepest, darkest depths of the ocean and says there's a whole new world of species down there, and he has evidence, which can't be refuted, to prove it then who am I to argue.
DeleteBut you can't say that this film is the truth when there are still so many questions about its authenticity. You just can't. truth should be able to stand up to critical argument. If you know it and believe it to be true then don't get so wound up about it. Just accept that sometimes people disagree with you.
Okie chill out I am sorry if I have gone against your faith.
DeleteShow me the evidence that sasquatch exists and I will happily accept it.
The pgf is not conclusive evidence and never will be.
Actually it is, it's even unknowingly supported by Albert Ostman's close encounter back in 1924 so Okie's points are extremely valid in proving it no suit, madness anyway to cling to some old Hollywood dream of make-believe monsters because you can't fathom these quite simple factors really that prove the film no hoax and why we've never seen any successful recreation.
DeleteIf you want to prove it fake you'll have to do a hell of a lot better than the old helmet or stick arm excuse, none of those fly when we know the anatomies of human/great ape bodies.
Nor does Patty look anything like any drawing in a book with hundreds of drawings, not one there looks like her and women sasquatches do exist as well as men.
She physically resembles other sightings in gait too. Walking this steady looking out a mask (too high up for that) and strut across uneven ground with apparent ease just isn't possible in one take as claimed. Be our guest and don a suit see how funny you'll look.
The Patty I saw didn't have boobs but he did have a 12" dingdong
DeleteRon Jeremy, right?
DeleteNope,Long Dong Silver.
DeleteAnon 2.28pm: You need to see the drawing that is in Patterson's book (again as other posters have already mentioned countless of times but no-one seems to want to talk about it), which was out before he filmed Patty), it is a BF with breasts extra-ordinarily similar to that of Patty.
DeleteThat drawing doesn't look anything like Patty lots of drawings in his book of both sexes.
DeleteCan't argue with close mindedness, If this is a suit then show me another suit this elaberate from the sixties? Nothing close, I guess the'll say RP/BG are skilled costume make that missed their calling. Come on get a grip, I usally don't even waste my time talking to people about this film because it just drives me f---ing nuts when people say it isn't real.
ReplyDeleteExactly. Lol especially like this burden of proof guy who apparently suffers from some sort of eye disease that keeps him from seeing muscle definition and what not.
DeleteIf it is a suit, I would love to see it on display. I think it's a work of art, a true masterpiece.
DeleteNoone has bothered to recreate a bad bigfoot suit as shown in the pgf and then recreated it, filming using the same grainy film camera with the subject at such a distance.
DeleteLiteraly the suit looks so bad its not even funny.
Okie you seem really upset that I have gone against your pgf religious film.
Lol not really.
DeleteThis guy really is a burden isn't he. LOL He haunts youtube as well and was here a while back where you conversed with him as 451. Not bothered to recreate a bad bigfoot suit? Oh really? That's the dumbest excuse of them all if it's that bad what's stopping you, don't claim it's bad yet obviously you care enough to invest all this time commenting.
DeleteThis is the real deal folks. Patty looks just like the large breasted squatch I saw. Or was that yo mama?
DeleteThe Patty suit IS great; everything except the bottom of the feet...
ReplyDeleteNot one of the more convincing moments, that shot of the feet. The heels seem "off", but people argue for and against them matching the tracks. More inconclusiveness.
Deletethe subduction at the waist too
DeleteThe feet look just as they should having walked through a sandy white creek bed. It would be stranger if there was no sand on the bottom of the feet at all.
DeleteVery true 1:29
DeleteYes Patty's feet are typical Sasquatch feet.
DeleteSand doesn't make blocked feet. There are no toes period. The toes in the tracks they showed as evidence are way different than what's portrayed in this footage. Sand doesn't make blocked feet, period.
DeleteIt does if the image is overexposed.
DeleteAll Patty's toes are there, trolls have a few lose brain cells though.
DeleteDid he just say "carbon date the suit"!? lol
ReplyDeleteIf the suit has horse hair or any part consisting of elements with a known half-life can't it be "carbon dated"? I honestly dont know.
DeleteNow I know: The answer is ......Carbon date the suit? Lol!
DeleteYou know it too? Good for you.
DeleteI just cannot understand people who won't believe in what they see, but have no qualms believing in a man in the sky that has never been seen.
ReplyDeleteDont worry I do not believe in God, and do not believe in the PGF.
DeleteBurden of proof my friends.
But He has been seen, by thousands of people. Hundreds witnessed Him walking around 3 days after He was killed.
DeleteJesse Christ? He existed yes but he's got nothing to do with this subject, although you trolls do treat it almost religiously.
DeleteBoy, you'd think the perpetrators of the "suit", made in 1967 with full muscle definition and 4-way stretch fur would have a lot more to gain by coming forward and working in Hollywood than remaining anonymous just to screw with people.
ReplyDeleteat $10,000 a pop, it is a nice little earner, definately a good idea to keep it a secret.
DeleteExcept it was no suit nobody would've been able to resist making other Bigfoot films then, they'd really been well set for life only they didn't. There's nothing before or after to equal this film, not that strange really when you consider it's a real species after all. Elusive and smart and very real, sorry trolls.
DeleteBecause I have a severe lack of trust of people's motives (in general), I tend to throw out the claims of suit makers and suit wearers, as there is less evidence for THEIR claims, than Patterson and Gimlin's claims. That's not to say that there couldn't be a kernel of truth to the hoaxing claims, but their story has tangible evidence to inspect. Not so for the former.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I like this film! Like most of us, I would probably not be visiting this site if it did not exist. Authentic, inconclusive or hoax, it is a part of N. American popular culture and it doesn't matter if it's real (there is plent of other info to go on), but it does beg the question of the existance of Sasquatch every time you watch it!
...and that alone is enough for me to love the idea of the film.
My opinion of this film has always been that it is "very compelling, yet inconclusive". That's about all we're going to get from discussing/arguing about it. If/when we get new, "accepted" and similar footage to compare it against, there is no way to corroborate the PG film, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
That's just the way it is in this modern world.
David from the PAC/NW
PS - Bob H. should give us something concrete to examine... or take a hike!
you would dismiss heironimus but believe patterson... lol
DeleteYou didn't read my comment... LOL
DeleteDavid from the PAC/NW
I believe bigfoot exists but I've never considered the PGF to be anything other than a hoax.
ReplyDeleteRight on the first wrong on the second.
DeleteRight on the first right on the second.
DeleteWrong on the first and wrong on the second, just dont ask me how.
DeletePossible on the first and right about the second.
DeletePatty got some big ole tittays
ReplyDeleteHahahahaha! Tig ole bitties!
DeleteOkie since it is apparent you are a firm believer and have had your own sighting, I have to ask. Why continue searching and going on your intended pay to play expedition. It seems redundent to me. Proving it to everybody won't do anything positive for bigfoot. In fact proving it may get more people going after it. Just curious. J.D.
ReplyDeleteNot going on the BFRO expedition. Got a no pay big thicket expedition this fall
DeleteOh, you mean camping..sweet.
DeleteThat's the way to do it anyway, camp and hang out for a few days somewhere and they will come to you. Good luck with it, Okie.
Deleteif they filmed more videos with the same suit, you think thats believable?
ReplyDelete1 film was enough, and the money still rolls in 40 years later.
those are awesome tits, I won't lie
ReplyDeleteAwesome if you like flap jacks. I got fooled by a flap jack having Jezebel one time. Damn the Wonderbra! I almost puked and decided that since she wasn't honest shed only be treated to a tug and pull. That'll teach her!
DeleteWell who knows? Maybe under all that hair theres a hard body squatchtress. I want to be dominated by an 800lb hard body squatchtress.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoy reading this blog when you have submitter s like Michael Higgins.. He is good..
ReplyDeleteSorry folks, bob h is a fraud. The only reason he even claimed this was because his horse was in the video and his name was never mentioned. Remember, patteeson and gimlins job were taking care of horses. Al deatley probably just refused to give him rights to the film. Bob is just a sad,pistoff copyright crybaby...
ReplyDelete