Poll: What is your opinion on the Patterson-Gimlin film?
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.The Patterson-Gimlin film. Without a doubt the most well known piece of alleged footage of a Sasquatch. Taken on October 20th 1967 by Roger Clarence Patterson, it has technically been proven to be legitimate by British and Russian scientists. Yet, skepticism surrounding the film still exists. What do you think of the film?
It's a hoax, always has been and always will be. It's the only thing left for Bigfoot zealots to hang on to so they'll all tell you it's real. What else do they have?
ReplyDeleteHow's it a hoax?
DeleteAgreed. Hoax.
DeleteI bet this idiot believes the suit has been found too.
DeleteWho knows what happened to the suit it's irrelevant. 5 mins research and maybe another 5 mins of logical thinking and for 99.99% of people its plain to see that its a hoax. Hell you only need to watch the film for 30 seconds to see the laughably bad monkey suit.
DeleteBigfoot may well exist but the pgf is a guy in a suit.
I applaud Bigfoot believers that can admit this but for most its all they have to hold on to.
Over and out.
Then why are you obsessed with the footage ?
DeleteIts new on the DSM manual this year:
DeleteOCD w/ a Patterson Grimlin spectrum disorder
It's real but I kind of believe it was the last one I think they r extinct . That was in 1967 it's 2012 and they still can't find a type of fur to match that? The rest of the videos might b fake but Patty is real
DeleteMonkey suits don't have spinal erector muscles. When filmed from the rear, the spinal erector muscles on either side of the spine are plain to see.
DeleteThe arms are way too long; the hands are enormous. The positioning and posture of the hands as the arms swing is bizarre and not humanlike.
The buttocks are enormous, which would be necessary to move a great mass. Think of a horse, donkey, etc., all with huge glutes for locomotion.
When the individual stumbles just after turning to look at Patterson, the slow-motion effect of the slight stumble and recovery are consistent with an individual of great weight and mass.
You can't "stick breasts" on a monkey suit.
It's hard to know what the individual is, since we had nothing on film to compare it to. So, what do you expect? If there is nothing to compare it to, you are already in a faulty and weak position from which to claim it as a hoax. You have no measuring sticks other than humans, gorillas, and humans in ape suits. You don't have a clear film of another supposed sasquatch to compare Patty with.
In other words, you don't have the data to confidently claim "fake", because you don't possess film of a known genuine article from which to draw a comparision.
There is no actual evidence that Patty is fake. There is evidence that the individual is not in a suit or costume.
Based on the evidence we have from the film, there is more evidence to vote Genuine than Hoax.
Dermal ridges wouldn't appear well or at all in damp sand.
The shallow forehead shown would make it unlikely this is a mask-helmet of some kind.
The only people probably who know if this is genuine or not are eyewitnesses of these creatures, if the latter are real. What have native Indians local to Bluff Creek said about the film? Has anyone ever asked them? Have any of them said Yes, this is what I've seen, or this matches what is described in our traditions? Where are the local native commentators on this footage?
In any case, suits don't have muscles. Watch the rear view--the spinal erectors are clear. Watch the stumble-and recovery over and over and notice the obvious weight and mass of the individual as it moves through this sequence.
Look for the muscles beneath the hair. This evidence goes against the idea of suit or costume. So do breasts of course, and the weird bearded appearance of the face.
Us non-eyewitnesses don't know what it is, but there is evidence in the film against it being a hoax.
--Zorro . . . Olé!!!
Anon 8:34, that’s quite a mouthful you said there, so you’ll have to excuse me if I don't refute every piece of bullshit you made up.
DeleteFirst things first: muscle movement. You guys say it over and over again. I can't understand how you don't realize that you’re making a subjective observation. Bob Hieronymus had muscles, and they moved when he walked. In a heavy fur suit in California in October he would have been sweating like a pig. The suit would stick to him and the fabric would move around as he walked. Seriously man look down at you leg and move your foot up and down. Your gastrocnemius will expand and contract as you move your foot, and it will be visible through your pant leg. Ok, now calm down, it doesn't mean that your pants are Bigfoot. It just means that your muscles move when you do, just like Bob Hieronymus's muscles moved when he was wearing the fur suit. Your fanciful notion that the muscle movement that you see in the Patterson film is somehow inconsistent with a man in a fur suit is just your opinion. There is no way that you can quantitatively measure the movement of the suit and prove that it's inconsistent with a man in a suit. And if you think you can, I would very much like to check you math.
Second: You said “the slow-motion effect of the slight stumble and recovery are consistent with an individual of great weight and mass.” Well that is quite a claim you have made but it should be easy to verify. First we have to measure the absolute recovery time of Patty in the video. Then we can compare it von recklinghausen's stumble recovery time index. Then we multiply by the primate gracefulness coefficient and finally we convert it into metric units by dividing by the square root of theta and that equals: YOU ARE TALKING OUT OF YOUR ASS. You’re just giving your opinion you moron, “the slow-motion effect of the slight stumble and recovery are consistent with an individual of great weight and mass.” is merely how you feel about the video, it is not any kind of evidence.
Third: You have completely forgotten to mention the things that are wrong with the video. Real primates don't have shaggy breasts. And if Patty's big ass is so consistent with bipedalism where is her gluteal cleft? That right, she doesn't have one. Instead she has a big, baggy, man-in-a-suit-butt. Which is not at all consistent with a real primate.
I think you get the point. You need to get non-subjective data rather than repeating your opinion over and over again.
Patty got back!!!
DeleteWho said patty was a primate you dope and how do you know what breasts look like on a BF, now your just giving your opinion you fucktard. Plus, what monkey suit have you ever seen that shows muscle movement through it...... Your talking out your shithole .
DeleteNo one has ever replicated this suit, or even came close. If its just a guy in a monkey suit, duplicate it. It's only been 40 odd years, shouldn't be that hard.
It's no hoax dammit and Mr. Poulsen knows very well a thread like this will only flock the trolls, just see what's happened so far. Nothing can get them out like good old Patty can. The very reason it's still discussed means somebody has something invested in the hoax claim otherwise who'd care if it's just a bad old suit, why would anybody care about that, the ongoing bullshit only support the film not the opposite. Damn right it's real.
DeleteThere were people that had money invested in the hoax and admit to this day that it was a HOAX.
DeleteThere's also people to this day who say its REAL.
DeleteHoax? LOL You bet your butt it's not, many have seen the critters and all describe a similar ape/humanlike shape behaving just different enough bodily not to be one of our own human kind. Money invested? Thatt's the dumbest excuse ever, it didn't make a dime and Mrs. Patterson's making peanuts from it. Who cares anyway if she were, her husband had a showman's nature so making a buck isn't so bad especially not when it's real. Why does everybody assume if you make a buck and it's about Bigfoot that it's fake. LOL
DeleteI look at the PGF and........I just do not see an animal walking, when (enlarged off course) "it" looks over its shoulder I see something that really reminds me of a football helmet with fur glued on, the back of "it" is to square.
DeleteSorry BF believers, nowhere do I see any evidence of muscles or anything else proving "it" to be a real animal.
All this and knowing the backstory on Patterson (the book illustration, the unpaid debts & the " coincidence" of a bigfoot making an appearance there where a "documentary" is being filmed) puts me firmly on the ( very) skeptical side.
That being said, I enjoy the debate, love the "mysterie" and I would certainly be out there bigfooting if the opportunity presented itself.
Best hoaxes involve plausible deniability
ReplyDeleteSo do closet bleevers.
DeleteListen to the EXPERTS; Meldrum on primate locomotion, Dunn on special effects and photography, Chilcut on the footprints, and many, many more. Two things that seal it for me: it was ONE TAKE and they ran out of film, and two, the pendulous breasts. Why fake boobs on a hoax? REAL
ReplyDeleteWhy fake boobs? Well just take a look as Patterson's drawing before the pgf showing a female Bigfoot with breasts.
DeleteNow as a hoaxer it would be very difficult to hoax a 9 foot male Bigfoot and make it believable. So the choice was made to depict a smaller female. A 6 foot man in a suit could pull this off nicely. Just attach some breasts and the hoax is sold.
Great apes don't have breasts. Why would anyone have thought of attaching breasts to an ape suit????
DeleteIt's real because of the breasts
For the same reason Patterson drew a picture of a female bigfoot with breasts BEFORE the pgf was filmed.
DeleteThere are no dermal ridges associated with the Patterson prints: keep the evidence straight.
DeleteThe drawing in Pattersons book is irrelevant because one, it was based on an eyewitness description, not something he pulled out of his behind, and two, WHY go thru the trouble when it's just EASIER to hoax a male.
DeleteAs for dermal ridges, I believe anon may be right in correcting me. However, the depth of the casts in the sand, the stride length, the size of the prints, all add up to physical evidence which SUPPORTS what is in the film. Were two simple Cowboys that sophisticated to hoax the corresponding prints and the supportive data drawn from said prints as well? Harder to believe that than to believe Patty is REAL.
Delete..easier to hoax a male?
DeleteTry finding an 8 foot tall extremely muscular human to fit in a suit...
No, it's much easier faking boobs.
Yes Blob, no ridges. "Pattys feet..and the footprints" is a nice thread on BFF and Meldrums 07 paper has a section on who casted what Patty prints and when they did so; for anyone interested.
DeleteBreasts or not or female or not - none of that matters one bit any of it, it's still not possible to fake it no matter the subject's gender because the build of the body is always the most crucial point. We can't even fake female sized bigfoots because their bodies are so apelike and the way this one's shaped proves this to a tee. Muscles abound all over her and there just weren't any movies suits like this back then where it was still the stone age in costumes, besides male humans have hairy chests so why wouldn't the women of this hominin race. Goes without saying for an excessively hairy species.
DeleteSo what was the deal with the big diaper butt? And lets just ignore the fact that the feet looked like clown shoes and could've probably been used as water skis.
DeleteNone of what you say make sense she's got a big hairy butt - so what. She's just a little hairier than most fat ladies and her feet are the typical Bigfoot feet so your comment is kinda pointless.
Deleteit's very real.
ReplyDeleteSkeptics think that because big foots walk like humans and not like apes makes them think the videos are fake! They need to open their minds to idea that big foots are probably half way between human and apes and therefore walk upright like man does.
But then again, there are skeptics that will still refuse to believe once DNA evidence is released, or for that matter a body. (Burnt or otherwise, LOL).
Chad W
You are absolutely right, they just need to open their minds and use their imagination. It will then become clear to them.
DeleteThat would demand intelligence and they're incapable of that which is why they've chosen the more simple life of a troll.
DeleteThe fake footprint salesman has admitted that it could've been a human in a suit. Ah, it wasn't that long ago that all the 'footers were talking about how they were going to gloat when Ketchum's results were published. Now they are back to square one and all they have is PGF. The MyKaka skunk ape is better than PGF and it's an obvious hoax.
ReplyDeleteThen why are you here, troll? There's lots more than the PGF, lots. Including the Ketchum study which is still on whether the trolls want it or not.
DeleteYeah, it's still on. She's vanished and even her company's website is gone. Her paper will be released any day now.
DeleteSally here-Apparently Melba has run off with the patriarch of the family of five Bigfoot.She took all of Adrian Ericksons money and the Dna Paper she has been trying to peddle.But she did leave me enough money for bus fare to get back home.Thanks to all who have been following us but alas,it wasn't to be.
DeleteSally, you are tired old and worn out, please leave. It stopped being funny months ago.
DeleteI think it's still PHUNNY!!!LMAO!!!!
DeleteYes apparently because you wrote it.
DeleteNo,I'm Melba,that was Sally.
DeleteHeriemonoius = star of the show
ReplyDeleteOne of the greatest actors of all time.
Deleteby accident
DeleteBob H. Is a fuckin liar. He just wanted to be famous. He lied his ass off. He watched the film and practiced walking like that to make everyone think he was Patty when he wasn't.
DeleteIt's real. Deal with it. Fuckers.
Oh? Please continue
DeleteOf course it's no hoax and the trolls know it that's why they troll.
DeleteThe only logical solution to the pgf is that it is a human in a costume.
ReplyDeleteBut 'footers have no sense of logic, that's part of what makes them so fascinating.
DeleteOk explain yourself.
DeleteTell us all how it is only logically for it to be a human in a suit.
C-Ballz, the guy is saying "bigfoot does not exist,therefore pgf depicts a man in a costume'".
DeleteYeah and the troll is wrong because of no possible way it could be faked, if you think it could be go ahead and try you make the claim it's fake now show how easy it was. Should be a piece of cake then if it's a bad suit, hey if it's so bad how come it doesn't look anything like all the bad suits we see? Even Hollywood's been trying for decades now and failed everytime, whereas the case for its authenticity and no hoax has been well presented many times and will continue to do so.
DeleteIs hoaxtacular a word?
ReplyDeleteis now - nice work
DeleteDem titties are real.
ReplyDeleteThey're already making you look like the fool you are, over at JREF. Why would you expect any less here?
DeleteIs that your own insecurity? I'm not surprised...
Deletethey are real! I know the difference between fake & real ones very well!
DeleteTo the JREF footers that troll here. Do you believe the suit has been found and the idiot with no money, no connections, no credibility who claims to have found it has some mysterious control over how and when the suit will be revealed ?
ReplyDeleteIf not why are you not openly questioning it and letting him pretend to have it ?
Are each one of you afraid to upset the pretend skeptic apple cart and risk losing acceptance from the rest of the herd over there ?
The suit doesn't need to be found. No need to have physical proof to know it's a hoax. Why would anyone believe something that hasn't been verified anyway? Oh that's right, you already do. If someone claims they found the suit, it will be believed by skeptics only if it's verified. And NO, I'm not from JREF, I think this site would be beneath most of those folks.
Delete6:50; I am not a poster, I only troll here; but I read some threads on Rand and Bff and people who regularly post on those forums,skeptics and footers, evidently post here...and that is a good thing.
Delete@6:50
DeleteBeneath ? You mean above don't you ?
And I don't blame you for not admitting to being a JREF footer.
@ 6:50
DeleteSo it's obvious you belong in the "don't want to lose acceptance from the herd" crowd ?
And no, I don't expect you to understand why that is so obvious.
No suit ever. Timmy the troll doesn't even know the meaning of any of the Randi junk he spurts here. LOL
DeleteMy just doc diagnosed me
ReplyDeleteOCD w/ a Patterson Grimlin spectrum disorder
People please stop w/ JREF references...boring
ReplyDeleteTruth hurts ?
DeleteLOL, dont even know what it is...just messin w/ ya sasquatch
DeleteRaindrops!
Actually, not boring; JREF members are mostly skeptics, while BFF posters are mostly believers. Some good threads and some sharp people on both. Anyway, a few post on both sites and the debates are civil, probably because of moderators and rules. Here, they say what they really meant:
DeleteBFF,JREF:" Good point, my friend"
Evidence" You are a clueless douche"
The randies are all closet homos like their master himself once he just can't quite persuade them to come out. LOL
DeleteLMAO !
Deletethe biggest problem with the PGF (aside from it fitting human parameters) is the huckster, con artist background of the man who made it......
ReplyDeleteyou vet Patterson and it becomes really hard to take anything that guy had to say as the truth.
NickTheBrick (really Timmy in drag) is wrong again, no human fits Patty - least of all that dummy Bob Horrible or whatever it is his name is. Backgrounds matter none when the evidence for no hoax is this good it's not the Sasquatches' fault who they run into out there and not their fault either you can't get that bit.
DeleteIt's like, how much more hoaxed could this be? and the answer is none. None more Hoaxed.
ReplyDeleteStonehenge, where a man's a man
Deleteand the children dance to the pipes of pan
Spinal Tap..lol
And amps go to eleven
DeletePatterson was a two-bit conman.
ReplyDelete?
DeleteBiscardi says it is a hoax. Therefor, it is real.
ReplyDeletegood answer - I like the way you think
DeleteIt's stood up against alot of scrutiny and hasn't fallen yet.
ReplyDeleteI believe it's a biological creature filmed.
I agree that some footers have done a good job poking holes in Long's scenario and arguing for legitimacy; read some good debates between the rand and bff people; my biggest problem is that it has not been replicated.
Delete...and by replicated I mean no one else has obtained footage like that. But it is fair to say no one else has clearly demonstrated thow the alleged hoax was created.
DeleteVery true. The skeptics and trolls won't believe you no matter what we say though. This is going to be a fight that lasts forever. Until we have body.
DeleteVia DNA that is or new good video.
DeleteNo suit built at that time could show the muscle groups, tendons flexing, etc under the skin. No stretch furry fabric existed. Munz report shows arm length too long for human. Suit would have to be too elaborate, and why because film was shot at such a distance that it has taken modern technology to see those details. Makes no sense for a suit of that quality. And impossible to make even today. No one has duplicated it and plenty have tried. Sorry skeptics, but your totally wrong about a suit.
ReplyDeletehis location of the shoulder joint is WRONG, his estimate of the height is WRONG, most of his estimates are wrong and have been thoroughly debunked. Suit would not be too elaborate if it was shot on 16mm from 100+ feet. and you weren't told it was a suit before hand.
Deletei guarantee you could be fooled if a "new" old time film arrived shot on such a grainy medium and at such a distance.
in fact, somebody got banned for fooling the entire BFF by photoshopping Patty into a completely different photograph and the whole damn board thought it was real until he told them.
Quit your lying asshole. It was DFoot and didn't tell anyone. He photoshopped Patty onto to a picture of his suit and people soon figured it out. He didn't get banned for that either.
Deleteyer mom got banned, from whore island
DeleteHaaaaaa!!!!!
DeleteTimmy doing the anon act now. LOL Still a real biological being, sorry buster. Try filming any bad suit from a distance then put it through a tuff investigation I guarantee you no details as good as Patty would show, in fact no muscle movement at all. They even did film a similar scene recently, even Finding Bigfoot did that too, same camera and film and it obviously looked fake. So film or camera doesn't matter, what matters is the subject itself and Patty's real body just doesn't lie.
Deletehot biological mess!
ReplyDeletereading the negative replies on here it's obvious that most have not spent any time looking at the enhanced versions of the film by Bill Munz or the Munz Report or the enhanced and stabilized MK Davis footage.
ReplyDeleteWhy is that? Afraid of what they might see. Afraid it will turn their reality upside down. Even qualified scientist that can't admit it's real because they have no room in their idea of reality for it. An image of the back of Patty next to the back of a silver back gorilla is floating around the net somewhere. One look and it's obvious that she is a real animal. The muscle groups are so similar and the physiology is so similar between the two large powerful primates no suit out there then or now can duplicate that. I'm sorry but you'll not convince me otherwise. No proof exists of it being fake.
I believe in the possibility of BF, however the film is bs - patterson is what he is. Its well known in his hometown
Deleteargued that film against Munns on the BFF, I thought it was real when I joined there and was convinced it was fake before I left.
DeleteHis arguments are not valid, they are speculative and make a lot of assumptions, his height estimate has been thoroughly debunked and he stubbornly refuses to eve imagine that he could ever be wrong about anything.
It's a fake, heck look at the waistline, it moves laterally, just like the top half of a suit sliding next to the bottom half of a suit.
it's a fake, sorry
but, this has nothing to do with whether or not bigfoot exists...
Actually it was the MK Davis footage that that made me think it could be fake. Before viewing that in continuous loop I was thinking it looked pretty real. J.D.
DeleteAnon @ 7:32 are you off your fuckin meds?
DeleteIt's not a suit. No one has recreated one since and no one has been able to replicate the film. Many have tried but all have failed. Get over it. F uckin wackadoos.
NickTheBrick is Timmy in case no one's figured it out but what's even more important is that the idiocy he spins is just that, idiocy. Patty's waistline is totally normal and the opposite of a suit actually, you can't have full body suits that show this much detail and natural shift in hair and skin visibility. It just wasn't done instead it's a perfectly natural occurrence and it'd be way too expensive and complicated anyway, not to mention impossible due to anatomical differences nor is the body looking anything like the liar who says it's him so technically can't be neither a tight suit nor padding. Anyone with a brain, excluding trolls, know this can't be and therefore isn't a suit.
DeleteGood science requires skeptics, thats a fact. Unfortunately what you see posted here is mostly childish banter and name calling with no compelling arguments against. Therefore I would suggest we have no real skeptics visiting here.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you think you deserve a serious rebuttal if you can't make a serious argument? Your evidence is a joke. You are a joke. Expect to be treated like one.
DeleteHere, here..That's why they're referred to as the JREF closet bleevers.
DeleteMention the PG film and they come like flies to a ribroast. I've never seen a group so collectively obsessed and intrigued by this film as those folks.
we aren't closet bleevers, we are former believers who grew up and realized that there is no evidence to support the existence of a Bigfoot.
DeleteYou supply the critter and i am ready to change my mind.
can you make such a statement?
Why don't you recreate the suit or film or hell, both?
DeleteI challenge you. I challenge any of you skeptics and nonbelievers to do it.
You have one month. Post your submissions here or on YouTube.
Prove us wrong. Show us how easy it is.
Aaaaaaaaaand....................... GO!
You didn't grow up, that's why you're still obsessed with the topic. Why do you think they're only about 10 of you clowns that play the skeptic role and are still obsessed by it ? Adults usually will lose interest in something they don't see as a mystery anymore. Children are usually interested in mythical creatures, adults are usually intrigued by mysteries.
DeleteUnless you're using the skeptic role in Bigfooting to finally sound like you're smart in at least something ? Let's face it, most of the general public thinks the subject is ridiculous and it doesn't take a whole lot of intelligence to realize the evidence for Bigfoot stinks.
When questioned by someone outside of this arena about your obsession with Bigfoot, what a better out than to say, 'I'm not like them idiots, I'm a Bigfoot skeptic'....lol
^^^
Delete@ NickB 7:41
@ 8:28
DeleteThat should be framed somewhere ! LMAO !
Not sure about that 8:28; lots of people are interested in things they don't believe are real; like sci-fi books for example. There is a nostalgic element here for some, people just like "monsters"-and here we have one that some reasonable people think might actually exist, the connection to acknowledged disciplines like anthropology and evolution, combinations of these things who knows?
Deletewhatever makes you feel good about yourselves.... I come here cuz Bigfoot in interesting, and the lunacy around it is damn sure entertaining. and I would love for there to some day be some evidence to prove me wrong.
Deletestill waiting.
oh, and you who hide under anon are cowards. please refrain from breeding and spreading your cowardly seed around
I'm not talking about belief or Science Fiction stories 8:47.
DeleteWhat I'm saying is most well adjusted adults will look at a mystery such as Bigfoot and if they decide that 'Hey the evidence for this looks like nonsense' (which I wouldn't blame any one for thinking ) they'll usually lose interest and move on with their lives and stimulate their intellect elsewhere. That's why there are no real Scientists who are skeptical of this subject who will waste more than 5 minutes of their time, degree and energy debating this topic either IMO.
Oh, yeah, forgot that......and the entertaining lunacy, combinations of these things who knows?
DeleteExcellent posts Anon who wrote 8:28 and 9:16. They should be pinned somewhere. They make the people strutting around playing the skeptic role look like idiots just like the way the rest of us are probably percieved.....lol
DeleteAnon 8:28, did you seriously say that “skeptics” never grew up? A grown man who believes in a mythological monster tells others to grow up? Go fuck yourself dude. Your hypocrisy is appalling. When you support Patterson's hoax you are a hoaxer yourself, you should expect to be ridiculed because it's what you deserve for lying to people.
DeleteIf you chilled out and looked at what he said your tiny brain might realise something.... if you don't believe why bother coming here and shouting abuse, if its a mythical monster why are you here. I think that's why he said you should grow up and go find something to do that you believe in and that interests you.
Delete9:16, that obviously wasn't a troll comment at 9:17, but meant to follow Nick's. Just want to be clear I was not calling your comment 'lunacy'.
DeleteGood points there pinning the idiot trolls down and exposing them for the brain dead kids they are. If they think it's all hogwash why spend your time on hogwash then, you can't have it both ways you can't have your cake and eat it. It's either nonsense and you move on or you hang on because you know or think it's real, there's no good excuse otherwise. For instance, Nick/Timmy/Burden/451's last comment there really pinned him down as the major troll here for sure.
DeleteC-Ballz
ReplyDeleteyou would never admit it was a great suit if you knew it was a suit, and since you posted this challenge any video that shows up now will be rebuked as an obvious hoax no matter how good it is.
the only way to do it is with an old movie camera and to hoax everyone for real, months from now. and finding film is too pricey and finding someone to develop is even worse.
i would submit that many of the movie suits looked better and would fool most of you if shot on 166mm at 100 feet and submitted as real.
B U L L S H I T
DeleteForget about the film then. I want someone to make a suit. With the advances in technology someone out there should be able to create a suit that replicates this exact suit. Or a suit that some would say is "better" than the PG Film.
DeleteThink about what they do in movies these days, why has no one made a suit just like it? Disney is amazing at everything, get them to make something up.
No one will ever step up to the challenge.
Deletemany many suits have been made better than this one...... but you know they are a suit....
Deletesee the psychological difference in perception at work?
Name one douche.
DeleteC-BALLZ, I have a challenge for you: Show me a fucking Bigfoot or shut up.
DeleteYour “you can't recreate the Patterson film” drivel is getting old. Of course no one can recreate the film EXACTLY because the film contains numerous chance events. If they filmed the same thing again on the same day it wouldn't look EXACTLY the same, nor would one expect it to. If I put on a large cloak and walked through a windy field while being filmed you couldn't recreate that film EXACTLY. That doesn't prove that my cloak is alive, it doesn't prove that my cloak is Bigfoot. It proves that the film contains numerous chance events. Even if there were such a thing as Bigfoot “Patty” herself couldn't recreate the film EXACTLY.
His challenge was to create the suit not the film shithead. You only have to look at the suits in the planet of the apes movies back in the 70s to know this isn't a suit. If you can't see that then nothing will convince you. Ohhh and your probably an idiot.
DeleteNick obviously is a troll and typically for trolls they can't name any movie suits supposedly better looking than Patty. Go on name one douches. And when you have it try filming it like Patterson you'll see how ridiculous it'll look and wouldn't fool a fly. The Marble Mountain video, another real squatch caught on camera, is videotape and looks just as real as Patty.
DeleteNone of them look fake when first you realize how these hominins actually look and move you just can't hoax it, so who operates the camera or its type is of zero importance in the bigger picture.
I thought the suits in 2001 were pretty damn good; of course I realize Kubrick had a little more cash on hand than Patterson.
DeleteMore cash for sure, but you seriously think 2001 was good? Maybe it was supposed to be a caveman of some sort, but it basically had a human shape which is only natural of course since that's how we happen to be shaped but an ape body it didn't have though people think it did because all they pay attention to is the hair while they see an actor crawling around.
DeleteYou are right, they didn't have an ape body. I think it was good for what you say it represented(cavemen/pre-humans), which was the intent.
DeleteAND...let them do battle.
ReplyDeleteThis is fun to watch - will the post count approach Colorado Burnt BF?
Tune in next time...
This is THE real deal.
ReplyDeleteOr it's a beautiful hoax, a masterpiece, they knew the exact moment when to hold back from cartoonishness, which was a big problem with monkey suits back then. Everything about it looks very natural.
Again Pointless Post by some Kid who sits at home playing with himself and posting crap as usual.No body cares about some old footage of a dude in a suit,lets see some real proof and articles by real researchers.
ReplyDeleteNow , now..No need to describe yourself and tell us what you are at home doing.
DeleteFinish your Hotpocket then get to bed.
I'm not a researcher, that is true. I'm an investigator. I'm sorry you don't like my posts, what can I do to satisfy your needs your highness?
DeleteSpeaking of JREF, I'm pretty sure I know the real identity of one "Parnassus."
ReplyDeleteIs he an astronaut ?
DeleteHe's claimed to be everything but that....LOL
Deletewonder if a fire flushed this stinky ape out into the open?
ReplyDeletegave patterson a perfect shot.
also, if patty is still alive - she was 40 or so, she'd be about 85 today?
Not one skeptic can post a reply without name calling. Try a convincing discussion without it and maybe your views would be considered.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who has seen a 'squatch in the wild knows that Patty is real. Study of the film shows two 'squatches. The first one and the second one are not the same. Gimlin needs to be pressed mightily on what really happened that day. To boot, the shadows are different, showing that the two spliced sequences were taken at different times of the year.
ReplyDeleteI think so too, two squatches male and female and different times MK Davis proved this right? Gimlin's a great guy but he's probably not entirely truthful of how exactly it all went down. Not saying there's a massacre or anything, though there were rumors of loggers(?) hiring shooters to chase the pesting squatches away. And probably thought they'd film it at the same time, could be what Gimlin were involved in and knew his old buddy Roger had an interest in the bigfoots so invited him down to document it should the chance arise. And it did as we know, maybe their horse trip was an afterthought later to explain being there.
DeleteNot good people; If Gimlin's veracity is an issue, then one of the things he may be "hiding" is that Bob Heironimous was Patty.
DeleteYou people just randomly pull sh1t out of your asses. Thanks for the Monday morning laughs.
DeleteMaybe they just forgot to tape the breast to the first one.
Deletelots of good comments here!
ReplyDeletethe freeman footage is really good as well, I just dont understand why its always overlooked?
Because its is a FACT he hoaxed stuff. Patterson is only known to have tried to turn a buck via bigfooting: BIG difference.
DeleteEver heard the old saying, seek and you shall find. That's exactly what these two men did, determination helps and brought those encounters about. Freeman even got foolishly close, he knew very well he did and feared for his life.
DeleteU k.ow what they say...of the suit fits wear it...
ReplyDeleteThat has got to be a donkey kong, badonkey donk, shitter on that critter.Looks female to me,feel sorry for the man who hoaxed this if it was hoaxed.He must really have his moms ass,and tits.
ReplyDeleteLOL 205 votes for "its real" but only 30 for "dont know".
ReplyDeleteThat just shows the typical 'footers mentality.
To come to the conclusion that it is real is retarded when it is a FACT that the film can not and will never be proven either way (unless gimlin confesses of course)
Dumb.
Typical footer:
"I want bigfoot to be real. Patterson filmed what might be a bigfoot, and it doesnt bother me that this is the only time its ever happened. However, I reallllly want Bigfoot to be real, therefore the film is real"
Retarded logic.
Some very good posts above showing why its more likely to be a fake. Its simply a given.
The Burden of Proof is on the 'footers to prove bigfoot is real, NOT on the skeptics to prove the PGF is fake.
Good evening.
Hi Timmy.
DeleteFreeman didn't hoax anything, he was creating foot prints to test if, in fact, prints could be hoaxed. He was testing his theory and that was factual.
ReplyDeletethat old chestnut
DeleteFYI - yes he did, Freeman hoaxed his own death. He's up in the Blue Mts with a small family of BF. Rumor has it they took him in like one of their own.
DeleteSomeones working on a film about him right now.
The owner of the blog obviously posts something about Patterson-Gimlin periodically when site visits go down.
ReplyDeleteYeah very noticeable Patty equals heavy troll traffic.
DeleteTouche!
DeleteI find something compelling in this footage. I am sceptical about bigfoot but this film does not appear like an obvious fake to me. The main problems are those around the peple behind the film and the point that, if this is a real sasquatch, why is there not more physical evidence of them? It is possible that this is real, but from what we see I personally don't have enough to make my mind up. It's compelling though and I certainly don't see it as a laughable or obvious fake like some of my fellow (but perhaps more assertive) sceptics. I have watched MK Davis's stuff and this is when it gets more compelling. The white bigfoot is the other freaky one but I just discovered that. Sorry to go off topic, but why, in the white BF footage, does the cow not run away. I know cows (no not like that) and they are skittish, why doesn't it bolt or even look up???
ReplyDeleteDude.MM already said cows are people food and deer are Bigfoot food.So cows know that,therefore no reason to run.
DeleteAnon 2:47 Awesome lol
DeleteNot really. Why wouldn't bigfoot eat cows if it is an omnivore. And a cow would react on instinct. It's odd footage.
DeleteDude,do you read anything on this website?Or are you really that thick in the head?
DeleteAnswer the question then big boy. Why would bigfoot eat a deer but not a cow? Doesn't make sense. Just like you. Cows know bigfoot and that it wont eat them, is that what you are saying? And your calling me thick. Do you beleive in mermaids?
DeleteDammit boy,you are a stupid FVCK!! Let me draw you a map. On the show Finding Bigfoot Matt Moneymaker said''Bigfoot knows cows are human food so they leave them alone''.I know sounds stupid,like you.There,you have your explanation GAY-RATH.Now go suck on Timmys tit you twit.
DeleteSo basically you don't have an answer only reiterating a nonsense explanation and some childish abuse. You really showed me there fuckface. Do you believe in mermaids?
Delete^^''And there's your sign""^^
DeleteThick Headed GAE-RATH!
Congratulations on a superb set of responses ladies.
DeletePeople frequently make the assertion that a dumb cowboy hick like Patterson was too much of a poor simpleton to make such on elaborate costume and pull off such a hoax. Really? How does anyone know that Patterson was a feeble minded simpleton? Patterson worked in rodeos. He was a skilled leather worker, and he had a complete set of leather working tools. Not only did he have the ability to skillfully modify a gorilla suit, he had the professional tools to do it.
ReplyDeleteBefore Patterson shot the famous 1967 footage, he tried to get funding for a low budget bigfoot themed movie in which a group of cowboys try to track down a bigfoot with the help of an Indian guide (played by Bob Gimlin in a long-haired Indian wig).
As others have mentioned above, before shooting his famous 1967 footage, Patterson created a self published book about bigfoot complete with drawings that he himself created. Including a female bigfoot complete with breasts.
Many have spent decades off and on searching for bigfoot and have not seen a bigfoot. Patterson and Gimlin go from across two states to film a bigfoot, and bam, they run into one. Really?
There are many stories in which people who knew Patterson personally contend that he was perenially broke and always looking for ways to make a buck.
All of these points alone can be disputed and do not necessarily prove that Patterson hoaxed the 1967 footage. However, taken together they strongly point to the likelihood that Patterson did in fact hoax the famous footage. He tried to make money with bigfoot before the 1967 footage, and there is no reason to doubt that the October 1967 footage was yet another attempt at making money with bigfoot (which Patterson did with this footage).
I think that this was a hoax that turned out better than Patterson could have ever dreamed of. The distance, angle, and lighting made this footage more believable, and that's why it is still being disputed to this day.
Exactly, this film is a damn hoax. Its a shame retards scream its real its real WITHOUT doing RESEARCH into their lives.
Deleteyou got it...main point = he wasnt dumb at all, just short on cash
DeleteFacts all, except some say the drawings were a crib and that the female represents an eyewitness description. Either way, you can't say "Wow, its a female. Its unlikely he would have thought to hoax one of those." Still, while pretty suspect, you can say "Who else but someone looking for it is gonna catch it on camera, albeit to make a buck." Thats why Long had to attack his character so much, because its a jump from opportunism to fraud. He never hoaxed anything before, that we know of.
ReplyDeleteYeah, there is a very strong ad hominem argument that the Patterson footage was hoaxed. However, that does not prove that it was in fact hoaxed, nor would it being a hoax prove that bigfoot is only folklore and does not actually exist.
DeletePeople see what they want to see. The only thing that would kill this footage once and for all would be for Bob Gimlin to admit (perhaps on his death bed) that the footage was hoaxed. Unless and until that happens, this footage will live on.
I doubt if any other short piece of footage has been scrutinized as much as the PGF film. There will likely continue to be folks who are strongly on one side of the fence or the other regarding its veracity.
Regardless of whether or not the footage is the result of a hoax, science will never be convinced until a specimen is obtained. That is why any future footage, no matter how seemingly convincing it may be, will never prove the existence of bigfoot.
Anon 3:56 - You made a valid argument without ending your post with "yea and your mother farted on my face". Well done! That, my friends, is the type skeptic that this topic needs.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to believe "Patty" was a real creature in that film and I do hope it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt someday. One of the two men who know the truth has passed and the remaining guy doesn't waiver from his story.
ReplyDeleteOut of thousands of eyewitness accounts of purported sightings, some people claim that it looked exactly like "Patty" and just as many say it looked nothing like her. Where do we go from here?
Not to belittle someone's character, but if you asserted for years that "Patty" was real as you were making money speaking at bigfoot conventions, would you waiver from your story?
DeleteGo to the remaining guy(s) - buy him/them a beer out at xxxxx restaurant and lounge and find out the truth about "Patty". I did and I am satisfied.
ReplyDeleteHoax. The mothereffing END. A well known conman and proven liar has fooled a bunch of retards. I'm not really surprised.
ReplyDeleteGimlin knows that the film is spliced. He knows that the first 'squatch is male and the second with the breasts and booty is female. (At least any man who can tell a woman from a goat can tell that the booty on the second one is female)He knows that one of the sequences was filmed much earlier in the summer. I call on you, Mr. Gimlin to cut the crap and tell us what really happened.
ReplyDeleteWhat? Never heard that before. Can someone explain more about this?
DeleteForget PGF for a moment. While I am unfortunately irretrievably white, I am proud of some Susquehannock and Algonquin family blood. My distant native relatives are adamant of their knowledge that the 'squatch is real. Enough for me, even if I had not seen one.
ReplyDeletePatty does not have 'diaper butt' ... In all seriousness, that is a MASSIVE BUSH.
ReplyDeleteNo wonder they stink!
R