Patterson-Gimlin Film Poll Results: Patty Wins
Editor’s Note: Jonathan Poulsen has been researching the Sasquatch since 2008, but really involved himself heavily in 2011. He has since devoted his life to the near impossible challenge of verifying the existence of the Sasquatch. Shawn refers to him as the Bigfoot encyclopedia.Indeed, progress has been made...
The majority of the votes were in favor of the film, the reason being is probably because it is.
A small chunk, no where near as large as the 'It's real' option, thinks it's a hoax. Outside of hominology realms, most people believe it's a hoax. It's too bad most of these people have no knowledge of human anatomy and the way a human walks (also, most people have seen bad quality copies of copies of copies broadcasted on national televison). If the film is real, it shows the most important zoological discovery of all time. If it's fake, it shows an extremely talented, disproportionately heavy person who deserves an academy award for their performance as 'Patty'.
LOL, yer funny,the biometrics person fit a human skeleton into the suit perfectly, even Meldrum had to admit it was a possible for Patty to be a human in a suit.
ReplyDeleteAll signs point to the height being around 6'5 or so.
you take a normal guy, put him in a suit with big feet on it , and he walks EXACTLY like Patty does.
That , and you look at the terrible reputation of the filmmaker as a conman, huckster and flat out rip off artist, and it becoms very very difficult to believe it's real.
In fact, here is an interesting tidbit.
If Ketchum's paper proves that Bigfoot is human, then Patty is fake.
so which one is it footers?
LOL, look at this asshole footer trying to exempt himself from being a footer.
DeleteNow is that critical thinking? Patty's feet are almost identical to ours yet every skeptic and almost every Bigfooter can't see she's clearly human. Dr. Ketchum's paper will only help confirm that Patty is a Bigfoot. JREFer's can lick Meldrum's balls.
DeleteIs there really gonna be a paper guys?
DeleteMost likely, since there are many people involved. It's definitely not some hoax.
DeleteYou make a lot of false arguments here. First off, if you watch part three of the Bill Munns video series, you can see that fitting a person into the suit is not the problem. Lining up the joint is nearly impossible. And no matter what BODY you put into the suit, you'd still have to remove part of the costume wearer's cranium to get the head right.
DeleteAnd your argument that Ketchum could prove that Patty is not real is way off. No one examining this critically has ever argued that Patty is anything less than a human or human subspecies. Hooded nose, hair over the breasts. If any DNA evidence ever proves the existence of a new hominid, it will have no bearing whatsoever on the PG Film.
Anonymous 8:1600
DeleteCan you post the references regarding the biometrics study as I have not seen or read about that one. I am only familiar with the Munns overlay of the human figure over Patty and the dimensions are WAY off if you line up the hip/knee joints.
This guy using big words like "biometrics" is making things up as he goes along. After hours and hours of practice/repractice, take after take, they did recreate a close walk like the creature shown in the PG film. They also made a point to say that they were in a controlled setting and had practiced numerous times to recreate what PG filmed that day. It is foolish to attempt to debunk this film by reproducing it. (Although that has been unsuccessful.) Give a person enough time and resources, they can essentially reproduce anything.
DeleteSimply put; The PG film is real. The creature depicted in the film is real.
Agreed, absolutely real Sasquatch. Compare Patty to any fake video or film and it almost goes without saying that she fits the bill as real all the way. It's too bad the world's full of ignorants fed upon by the trolls, but the poll result here's a real blow to their failed mission and demonstrates the resoluteness of the Bigfoot research community. The truth prevails once again and so it always shall, to think it's fake you're fooling yourself and looking ever more the dummy.
DeleteYes LOL this "poll" proves Sasquatch. Great first reply from Anon yesterday. And, Patty is 100% HUMAN aka Bob Heironomous and thats from a NorCal native with cinnections.
DeleteYour gay little poll only believes the Bigfoot crazies on this site believe. They still believe in Ketchum too LOL.
No one's as crazy as you Timmy boy for being here in the first place, you're clearly no ordinary skeptic rather it's more likely your insecurity and jealousy that brings you here. But guess what that's what shirnks are for, here we couldn't care less what a troll like you thinks so why do you care. Obviously you're only here because you know it's all real (as it evidently is) and that scares you so profoundly you must tease it in order to get through the day, or of course you have a stake in this business/government-wise like most trolls.
DeleteHas anyone tried to walk through the woods with no shoes? The patty film looks real. Patty walks through the woods pretty smooth to be a person in a costume.
DeleteExplain how a suit can show the detailed muscle movements. Explain how to construct a suit of the quality needed to show what this movie shows.
ReplyDeleteCant tell that detail from this shitty old grain-fed film. Its fake anyway.
DeleteYou've made your invalid unimportant troll point now beat it sore loser.
DeleteHey wait a second anonymous...you aren't real! Your'e nothing but a hoax yourself! Quit hiding, put a name with the opinion you posted, and then go collect the ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS offered to anyone who can prove the Patterson/Gimlin film to be a fake. PG film = REAL SASQUATCH...there - you have learned a few things today.
ReplyDeleteI don't know about anon above, but the lateral movement of the fabric on the upper half relative to the hips of the lower half are pretty damning evidence, as is the mid thigh bi-furcation, the gait matching pretty well with what a human in clown shoes would walk like, not to mention the fact that no unsupported boob has ever stayed that ....well, full, in the history of primates.
DeleteYou add in the fact that Patterson stole his illustrations for the cover of his book and even made a drawing himself of something that looked a heck of a lot like Patty.... the support for it being real is not very good.
Prove? unless I had the suit none of you religious zealots would ever admit anything. (and even if i did you would somehow rationalize that I made it myself).
Besides the fact that it isn't my responsibility to prove it's fake. The null hypothesis is Patty is fake, it's up to believers to prove it's real.
I think too many people hang their entire belief of Bigfoot on the PGF. The film can be a fake and Bigfoot can still be real. There are several of your fellow believers on the BFF who think exactly that.
Also, there is no logic for a bipedal animal to have a mid tarsal break, nor is there any Homo that features a mid tarsal break. anatomically, it would seem unlikely that nature would select for such a break on an animal that walks on two legs all of the time. especially when you consider the vast amount of weight that's reported.
Thus, if Ketchum's "paper" ever comes out and is actually worth a darn AND points to a sub species of humans or along our family tree, then the PGF is a fake, and all of the mid tarsal break stuff is also probably untrue.
if it says "monkey" then all of that stuff would actually fit.
so what anon said is kinda true. If the Ketchum paper proves a relative of humans is lurking the countryside, then it is damning evidence AGAINST the PGF.
Preach!
DeleteSorry, that was meant to praise Tommy, NOT Dick B
Deleteyer mother praised me last not after I dug her corpse up
DeleteLol anon.
DeleteNick? How many levels of wrong were you going for? Okay the breasts do sway if you look at the original direct footage(Not the mass copied footage.). And they look firm so what??? Patty could be young or Patty could have been nursing.
DeleteNo Clown walks like that. Clowns walk with their toes pointed outward, not inlined with one foot in-front of the other. Now what really gets me is your:
"Also, there is no logic for a bipedal animal to have a mid tarsal break, nor is there any Homo that features a mid tarsal break. "
Do you just blab this stuff out without researching it first? Of all the Hominids that ever lived, we have a problem with finding entire feet. But what we do have are their foot prints.. ALL show a Mid-tarsal break. Even Neanderthals. The only Hominid with an odd foot is us. We are the only Hominid with an arch (And there really isn't any logic for the human arch)
Amen. Well said, sir. I am a BF believer, but I doubt EVERY Piece of footage EXCEPT PGF. I believe I am fair and open minded, but there is no doubt in my mind PGF is real
DeleteHaha that shut Nick up.
DeleteWhat a loser tommy is. Hey maybe I can sign up and not be anon anymore. Bummer, I'm not a stupid redneck so my picture would really standout.
DeleteNick B. you need to quit attempting to use large words to make yourself feel intelligent. First, the "book" you refer to does show a female bigfoot. (Much smaller I might add) then the one filmed by P/G. However; Patterson had talked to witnesses prior to the book who had given him descriptions of female sasquatch. Your "fabric movement" is hillarious. You are seeing what you want to see. Computer enhancements show muscle movement, mouth movements and facial movement. The analysis didn't "notice" any fabric.
DeleteYou are silly. Simply put. Maybe your family didn't take you to a circus when you were little thus causing you to have nightmares about the funny circus clowns looking like hairy beasts. Funny how our minds will adapt and "cope" with tramatic events. The film is real. The creature doesn't walk like a clown. There is no fabric. Numerous attempts to reproduce have failed. Sorry.
NickTheBrick struck out again.
DeleteImagine someone living his whole life obsessed with something he thinks is fake - even worse when like here it's clearly not!
It's a state of delusion called denial facing the damning evidence contra one's own troll make-believe, these grown men need to grow up and go get laid or something instead of wasting their time arguing the undeniable.
Such as no available costume techniques in 1967 or species know-how like the typical and very obvious bigfoot anatomics flushing the worn out hoax lie.
All deniers don't want to talk about the details of the movie just make claims about the guys that shot it. Go watch the enhanced and stabilized version about a hundred times then come back and make claims.
ReplyDeleteHere we go again...fake real fake real fake real you can't prove its fake you can't prove its real guy in a suit you can see muscles human can't fit in the "suit"......I think Phil was on to something...
ReplyDeletediaper butt
ReplyDeletebunching of fabric by the right hip/butt joint
the shoulder joint relative to the neck is way too low pointing to a person with a helmet on..
lots of things about it look phoney to me.... and I believe in Bigfoot!
I have watched this video numerous times; I have watched the computer enhancement many times. Are you sure you are watching the same video? Football helmet? Are you serious? First, In the late 60's, football helmets were "round" like a bubble. I played football from little league all the way through college. I have never worn a helmet that remotely resembles the shape of the creature's head.
DeleteSometimes people see what they want to see. Obviously you want to see a football helmet and bunching of fabric. If a computer enhancement/breakdown doesn't find it....well, you are missing your calling as a computer analysist is guess.
Damn right the trolls only see what they want to see, like suggesting a football helmet when no-body could get up to the head is so dumb it's not even funny. The arms are too far apart and the bones too long, as a suit Patty would make no sense evidence of which there's plenty of in old movies.
DeleteSo why has NO ONE been able to duplicate what's on that film? The TV show FACT OR FAKED is able to reproduce dozens of so called paranormal videos. Why can't they or anyone else reproduce the PGF?
ReplyDeleteTo this day it has yet to be re-created.
DeleteThey have, but it's shot on video and looks like a suit, not to mention that the best suit ever made could be done by Rick Baker and look amazing, and you would all scream" it looks fake" because you would KNOW it was a fake. That and it would probably be shot on hi-def video.
DeleteThe only way to convince people would be to hoax them.... with an old film camera. The grain adds to the illusion by covering up details, and also by adding to all of this "movement" that people claim to see, but if you look at the background, everything appears to be moving around. It's the grain of the film, enhanced and blown up.
I bet that if you shot the PGF with a video camera in the woods now, you would all scream hoax faster than that goofy photo that got posted today.
P.S. one could say you have all seen a patty recreation proven already, as there are probably a few videos you have sworn are real that have been proven to be fake. so you got fooled once eh?
You're still rambling on about that same s h i t, Nick B. Give it up. Nobody cares what you think. You sound like an a$$hole to me.
DeleteHow many times have you looked and watched and studied the stabilized enhanced copies of the film?
Go watch it again if you have and come back and let us know you are a believer now.
Lateral movement blah blah blah. Idiot.
DeleteThe PGF being shot in full HD would be a dream come true. It would silence many of the idiots claiming it's hoaxed.
DeleteYup. The 16mm grain, the slight lack of focus, the distance, and the lighting all help to make the creature seem more real.
DeleteYour right.It should of been shot in I-Max on a sound stage.
DeleteNicky B, you are wrong again. They have used an EXACT duplicate of the original film camera used by P/G. Guess what? They could produce the results. You need to do some research. You are spouting claims that you know nothing about.
DeleteLet me correct myself above. They COULD NOT produce the results.
DeleteTrue yes, those picking straw claims now saying it's an optical illusion caused by the camera and film are seriously mad. Grain? wtf. LOL Plenty of detail in this film.
DeleteSame camera type and film's been used again and it never looks anything like patty instead those attempts look pathetic and fake like all hoaxes.
The marple mountain clip, real squatch, is shot on video and depicts the exact same anatomical species characteristics proving the equipment is utterly irrelevant when it's the real thing you're shooting.
I’ve been ready to explode like Mt. St. Helens since the weekend of May 27 and 28, and what happened to me was the evening of the 28 I woke up in my house. It was late in the evening—early morning, A.M. And my house was shakin’, and it’s shakin’! and it’s just shakin’! and it’s shaking!—it shakes for over a minute to two minutes. It shook constantly.
ReplyDeleteAnd.......
DeleteWere you percolating with explosive diarrhea ?
DeleteRogue helicopter pilot, flyin low over my magnolia tree
DeleteCBallz
ReplyDeletehow old are you? mr tough talker, I'd rip you im half and shit down yer neck and then piss on yer mothers face you pathetic shitstain
I've debated the enhanced version with the very man who scanned it. (Munns) and it was his enhanced version that proved to me it's fake. You have no repsonse or you wouldn't resort to name calling. i have presented an opinion based on what I saw. if you have a counter argument, present it, if not. shut yer piehole before I stomp another verbal mudhole in your ass ya weakling.
@NickB
DeleteConsidering your obvious obsession with Bigfoot and all the time you spend discussing it on the internet does your family (wife ? children ?) believe that you're a "Bigfoot skeptic" or are they not buying it either ?
Nick, these are footers you're taking to. They are like a broken record. You can present buttloads of evidence but they will just say the same things over and over again:
DeleteYou're just mad that you have a small penis.
You live in your mother's basement.
You're a libtard.
You're a smelly fart-face.
Etc...
They have no counter argument whatsoever and do not understand the concept of debate. Their faith in the squatch has made their minds impervious to logic, reason, or rational thought.
Why the fuck did penis get censored? That’s not a fucking swearword.
DeleteGet off your high horse asshole. I don't blame you for feeling embarrassed by being a JREF footer and for trying to turn around everything you simpletons embody onto others.
DeleteAnon 11:20, are you actually trying to prove me right? I state that you footers don't bother to present counter arguments and instead engage in repetitive name calling. And you immediately respond by not presenting a counter argument and resorting to name calling. And making a false accusation. I could not be more correct in my assessment of you losers.
DeleteYou were countered perfectly by what you wrote and it was a spot on accusation.
DeleteStupid retard, that makes no sense. Shouldn't you hicks be off fucking goats somewhere or moonshineing or having incestuous interactions with your mothers? Oh, and I don't know or care what JREF is but whatever they did to get under your skin had to have been hysterical.
DeleteApparently anon 11:33 lacks reading comprehension and self awareness skills.
DeleteSelf awareness is not a skill, it is a property. An organism is either self aware or it is not. Now go plow a field you inbred unclefucker.
DeleteNick B, you are obviously seeing what you want to see. I saw the enhanced computer analysis of the original P/G film and I saw a living creature. Not a man wearing a football helmet, etc.
DeleteObviously, we see what we want to see sometimes based on preconceived bias or ideas.
Archer1
nick your a troll.i know it is true because it take one to know one
DeleteOf course he is, a mighty subject obsessed time wasting one and still a troll. These kooks just never learn you can tell by their monotonous replies, it's always the same old standard lies they pull out and when the reality they're not prepared to face hits them they lose their temper.
DeletePatty is the only "evidence" I find at all compelling and that in itself is a good reason to look at it with fresh, skeptical eyes.
ReplyDeleteWhat have true believers acquired since the Patterson-Gimlin film that is worth shit? Nothing. Yes, I know about all the footprints; the footage; the pictures; the Skookum cast; the Sierra vocalizations; anecdotal "evidence"; the DNA "proof" that keeps being withheld from the public, etc. etc. etc. None of it is compelling. It all smells like hoax to me.
NickB is right. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. Those who voted "Patty is real" have to PROVE it to those of us who are skeptical. It's impossible to do that in the absence of other physical evidence.
In the case of the PGF film I would argue that no one has been able to satisfactorily DISPROVE it either. Take the film with no claims attached as to what it shows; what would YOU say it is? If no one ever said BIGFOOT was on that film, and you were shown it with no predisposition either way, would your first response be THAT'S A MAN IN A SUIT? Furthermore, just where is the darned suit anyway?
DeleteClueless footer above. Learn what burden of proof is and realise the wild claim is that patty is real. Not that patty is fake.
DeleteIn my opinion there's lots of evidence to show its real. It's the skeptics that won't except any evidence, I mean just look on the net, tv documentaries the proof is there. If you don't believe fine but shut up with this burden of proof bullshit. If you don't believe now that's your choice but why come onto this site and rant and be self righteous. Go fuck off and get a life, that's mostly aimed at you Nick, why spend your hours debating on something you believe to be so clearly fake, surley you have loved ones you could spend these hours with. If I thought it was a fake video I wouldn't be here.
DeleteStephen.
Closed minded skeptics are more obsessed with this subjects than believers. Ha How sad is that.
DeleteAgree with your statement. BUT, a skeptic does not ignore facts. A skeptic acknowledges circumstancial evidence and remains open minded. They do not jump into one camp or the other. The attitude is, well, the evidence is interesting but until one is captured...then I will have to remain skeptical.
DeleteThe average "skeptic" on this site is not actually a skeptic. They are hardcore naysayers. They refuse to look at, or consider anything. Always, fake, stupid, monkey suit, person wearing wooden cut outs, etc, etc. etc. Although strong science backs the footprints being real, the skeptics/naysayers simple dismiss any scientific evidence unless it proves to be agreeable to their argument.
Raider
Exactly. Trolls have agendas and the facts located by researchers conflicting with theirs have no place inside that fantasy dome. Take NickTheDick, furthest from skeptic or right you can get only same old tired obsessive crap pulled. Just look how he suddenly pulled in moral if futile support from the fake atheist, these crowd guys are hobby protesters with no sincere cause or motive.
DeleteRetard Cup 2012
ReplyDeleteJREF vs Bigfootforum
Meet @ Bigfootevidence
Topic: "PGF and your emotional response"
Which retard are you ?
DeleteParnassus left the BFF after he got outed. He's afraid to come and play now that his real identity is at risk.
DeleteAnd what is his identity?We need facts!
DeleteI think the only people who believe Parnassus juggles 18 different academic and medical careers while maintaining an obsession with Bigfoot are the JREF closet bleever footer people.
DeleteParnassus is a cardiologist. Some call him Mike.
DeleteNo he's not.
Delete@11:47
DeleteParnassus has claimed many professions. Some would call him a liar.
others say his blood smells like cologne - he remains the most uninteresting man in the world
DeleteParnassus is a cardiologist in California. This is a fact.
DeleteA win for "patty".
ReplyDeleteA loss for logic and reason.
If you footers could let go of the pgf you may have a better chance of finding the truth.
Same to you if only you could quit trolling.
DeleteAnother fool wasting his day commenting in a subject he thinks is fake. Get a life loser !!!
ReplyDeleteLet's put a few facts on the table:
ReplyDeleteA human can fit in the frame of patty.
The gait can and has been replicated by humans.
We have a confession of the suit wearer which is backed up by other people.
Never before or since has a "Bigfoot" been caught out in the open.
Never before or since has anyone gone out saying they are going to film Bigfoot and 2 weeks later they film bigfoot , apart from other hoaxes.
These are all facts that must be denied in order to believe the pgf.
sofa king wee todd did
DeleteThere's always a first for everything and the PGF's it.
DeleteAnon 4:32, no matter how many times you troll your views don't make them any better in fact they're not facts at all but fabrications of your mind and since you buy into socalled hoax confessions you're even madder.
Gait's never been replicated, a suit looking like Patty never either.
That Patty's out in the open also speaks against hoax, most fakes are behind bushes or trees never exposing the suit to the revealing lense of the camera. That's why there's so few real ones and so many bad ones because this is an intelligent hominin.
Marble Mountain video's out in the open and just as real as Patty except it's male.
Those are some dumbass statements right there.........
ReplyDeleteHmmm? Patty Wins. Imagine that. Patty wins on a bigfoot blog site.
ReplyDeleteYou didn't expect the trolls to win anything, polls or arguments, did you?
DeleteI create a comment whenever I like a post on a website or if I have something to valuable to contribute to
ReplyDeletethe discussion. Usually it's a result of the sincerness communicated in the article I browsed. And on this post "Patterson-Gimlin Film Poll Results: Patty Wins". I was excited enough to drop a commenta response :-) I do have 2 questions for you if it's allright.
Is it only me or does it seem like some of these remarks look as if they are left by brain dead people?
:-P And, if you are posting on additional online
social sites, I'd like to keep up with you. Could you make a list every one of your shared pages like your Facebook page, twitter feed, or linkedin profile?
my website ... herbal sleep supplements
Woah! I'm really loving the template/theme of this site. It's simple, yet effective.
ReplyDeleteA lot of times it's challenging to get that "perfect balance" between usability and appearance. I must say you've done a amazing
job with this. Additionally, the blog loads super
fast for me on Internet explorer. Excellent Blog!
Feel free to surf to my web-site: female libido enhancement
Attractive section of content. I just stumbled upon your blog
ReplyDeleteand in accession capital to assert that I acquire in fact enjoyed account your blog posts.
Anyway I'll be subscribing to your feeds and even I achievement you access consistently rapidly.
Look at my blog post - buy breast actives
Hi, all is going nicely here and ofcourse every one is sharing data, that's in fact good, keep up writing.
ReplyDeletemy site Acai Weight Loss Products
Amazing! This blog looks exactly like my old
ReplyDeleteone! It's on a entirely different subject but it has pretty much the same layout and design. Wonderful choice of colors!
Also visit my web-site: natural diet pills
Why viewers still make use of to read news papers when in this technological world all is available on web?
ReplyDeleteLook at my web page: capsiplex pills
100 % authentic. Though i casual observer looking at unstabilized on a small format screen would assume that its a fake. When this film first appeared in 67 i swore it was a hoax. Though over the last few years i became interested in the film..watching this film on large format screens and stabilized its very apparent that its authentic. The skin, hair and anatomy is on the figure its incorporated into Patty its not outside the figure as if somebody is wearing a costume..the musculature works and moves as a whole though out this creatures every move.. The thinning ov the hair matches perfectly where friction from other body parts rubs hair thin. There are many aspects of Patty that prove that its not a custume 100% impossible... If you watch a continuous loop of Patty walking were her image is at least 5 inches large and stabilized It becomes obvoius even to the casual observer that its not a person in a suit...100 percent authentic.. The experts that have studies studied this film. Bill Munns and otheres know with 100% certainty that its real..casual observer's and trollers may think otherer wise which is ok....
ReplyDelete