Michael's Digitally Remastered Interview With Allagash Maine Bigfoot Witness
If you haven't listened to Michael's awesome interview from last year with this witness in Maine, we suggest you listen to this digitally remastered version with new graphics and illustrations. It's probably one of the most convincing encounter you will ever hear. The interview is with an ex-military man (anonymous) who came face to face with a Sasquatch standing just 20 ft away. The encounter happened 20 years ago and it changed his life forever. To this day, his voice trembles talking about it and he still gets very emotional recalling what happened that day.
First. Sacramento kings suck
ReplyDelete2st!
ReplyDeleteSecond. 2st is not correct around here bucko
ReplyDelete4th
ReplyDeleteO a wise guy
Deletekings suck what?--you didn't finish your sentence--Your dick is what you meant to say.
DeleteAnonymous? Anonymous = Story is BS
ReplyDeleteI can understand why someone would remain anonymous. To protect themselves from the haters. Just read these comments.
DeleteWhen it comes to bigfoot, anonymous means it's a fake story.
DeleteThis is remastered? What was it like before? It's unlistenable.
ReplyDeleteGo and listen to the original, and yes it was unlistenable. This is much better.
DeleteIllustrations alone were worth watching it for. How many people would really want to be that close to something that large?
DeleteSo people are never happy.
DeleteI was entertained. Yes I was. :)
DeleteNo body. No bigfoot. Very simple to mist folks. Ask any scientist. Need proof not stories. People lie.
ReplyDeleteDyer have a body. Ask minnow films.
DeleteTHERE IS NO BODY!!!
DeleteAre you saying all the witnesses are lying? Statistically that doesn't make any sense. Some of them have to be telling the truth.
DeleteTrue there is always the bell curve to consider.
DeleteMaybe MOST of them are lying, maybe MOST of them are hallucinating; which means that SOME of them are NOT hallucination, and NOT lying, which means, SOME of them are telling the truth, and accurately describing their encounters. Pointy to the only sane conclusion. There is something unknown living the woods of North America.
DeleteYou'll get a heaping plate of nothing and like it!
DeleteThis plate of nothing was very filling.
Delete'Are you saying all the witnesses are lying? Statistically that doesn't make any sense. Some of them have to be telling the truth.'
DeleteI don't understand the statistical reference. I do have an open mind, though. Please explain. Previously, I felt that if someone said they saw something and that something didn't exist, they'd have to be lying or mistaken. Now I learn that if enough people say they saw it, it must exist.
Yes learning is fun.
DeleteBernard Heuvelmans
ReplyDeleteBernard Heuvelmans —a zoologist and the so-called "father of cryptozoology" —thought the creature in the Patterson film was a suited human.[
Stan Winston
Multiple Academy Award winner Stan Winston, after viewing the PGF, summed it up simply as "it's a guy in a bad fur suit, sorry!" He went on to comment that the suit in the film could have been made today for "a couple hundred dollars" or "under a thousand, in that day". He also added that "if one of my colleagues created this for a movie, he would be out of business
Other analyses
In a first season episode of the History Channel series MonsterQuest focusing on the Bigfoot phenomenon, one test is performed on the Patterson–Gimlin film in an attempt to verify whether the creature was real. The show states that the original film was microscopically examined and, through digital enhancement, previously unknown details were revealed, such as possible facial movements. The film is examined on a frame-by-frame basis for the show, but it is stated that the analysis was inconclusive. It was later determined that the film used was not the original film but was, in fact, a copy. The series producers have reluctantly refused to advertise that fact to the public. No previously unknown facts of significance were shown.[citation needed] Rock musician Ben River posted an article [46] announcing the PGF as a hoax with proof being presented in the footprint portion and casting clips of the film.
Its a HOAX FOLKS!!
Too much reading
DeleteApparently not enough reading for you 8:02.
DeleteBullshit. Real Animal.
DeleteThe claim that the PGF is a hoax, is a hoax.
DeleteUntil you can reproduce Patty, you have no point.
You have no valid opinion until you can reproduce Patty.
A couple of hundred bucks to reproduce Patty? OK, there should be Patty people running all over the place then. There should be one video or photo of a Patty repro.
But there isn't.
You have nothing.
How do you like it?
Patterson was a charlatan, a con, a shady character. What more do you need to realize that you've been conned by a con man?
DeleteAs has been explained many times, Patterson made a one of a kind modified costume that would be difficult if not impossible to recreate exactly as it looked on 16mm film in 1967. Not only would the exterior of the costume need to be the same, but the type of accessories used for the costume(i.e. helmet, shoulder pads, padding, etc.) would have to be exactly the same. Also, the build of the person wearing the costume would have to be identical to the wearer of the costume in the PGF. Not only that, the angle, distance, and lighting would have to be the same, and a 16mm camera with the same grainy film would need to be used.
Patterson was a professional leather worker who worked in rodeos. He had a set of leather working tools. He not only had the skills to create such a costume, he had the professional tools to do it.
Just because no one has recreated a suit that looks exactly like the subject in the Patterson film is absolutely not proof that the subject in the film was a real bigfoot.
The Patterson costume was one of a kind. Frankly, a number of the bigfoot costumes that have appeared in movies look more realistic than "Patty."
Worth a read it just goes to prove patty was real.
DeleteIt proves Patty was real? There is zero proof that Patty was a real sasquatch.
DeletePatterson was a charlatan. If someone reputable took the footage, it would be more believable.
ReplyDeleteSo, Gimlin is lying at bigfoot conferences?
Yes, he's telling a tall tale.
DeleteYears from now, if no bigfoots turn up, he and Al Deatley will be labeled unrepentant frauds. They would do well to pass on to posterity the details of this popular hoax....
DeleteWho is Al Deatley?
DeleteGimlin, on his death bed will not give up the hoax I've heard. He dug himself (and his family) in to deep.
DeleteWhat a drag to be him..
Records show that, decades ago, Gimlin sued Al Deatley and Patterson's widow because he wasn't getting his share of the PGF money that was being made. There was some settlement, but no details were provided.
DeleteMaybe Gimlin is getting the money now in a roundabout way by getting paid to speak at bigfoot conferences.
I like turtles
DeleteWHO IS AL DEATLEY!!!???
DeleteBigfoot.
DeleteAl Deatley is Roger's brother-in-law. He was the financial backer of Roger's film project and was involved with the distribution of the PGF to theaters.....
DeleteWhat? Patterson had a financial backer? I was always under the impression that Patterson self financed the whole venture.
DeleteI thought that Patterson had a rented 16mm camera and that there was a warrant out for him because he didn't return it on time.
If someone was backing him, yeah, it makes the whole thing more fishy. Gotta come back with something for the money that the brother-in-law gave me.
Today is BUGS BUNNY'S BIRTHDAY 75 YEARS OLD!!
ReplyDeleteLOONEY TUNES DAY!!
Bugs Bunny
en.wikipedia.org
Bugs Bunny is a funny animal cartoon character, best remembered for his starring roles in the Looney Tunes …
I'm going coo-coo!
DeleteWoo-woo!
Here comes the choo-choo!
Woo-woo!
I'm a looney tooney touched in the head!
Please pass the ketchup, I'll think I'll go to bed!
Bugs was our Sponge Bob in the 70's...
It's sacrilege to even mention Bugs Bunny and Sponge Bob in the same sentence let alone compare them.
DeleteThe interview sounded like it came from "Jaba the Hut".
ReplyDeleteraja nabadua wookie nipple pinchy
DeleteThe drawings were cool as hell though.
DeleteBrilliant Analysis by the Posters as usual.. Congrats.
ReplyDeleteI am sure you would have believed the world was flat also - it cannot be if you cannot see. I am sure you think quite highly of yourselves.
Huh? Are you anti-bigfoot?
DeleteAnti-"Everything is HOAX, there is no other possibility, just ignore every sighting report" posters.
DeleteMost of the brilliant posters are idiots. It's surprising to me, that any witnesses come out into the open. They have nothing to gain, except ridicule. This forum is a perfect example.
DeleteMost of the witnesses come forward with nothing but a story. So many of them have turned out to be hoaxes/lies that, yeah, it's tough to believe any eyewitness accounts.
DeleteMany of the sightings reports are starting to have the same phrasing in their descriptions. This is making them harder to believe - perhaps unfairly. Then there is the few stories that standout - such as this one. Is it real or is it a hoax?
DeleteAn amazing story! Want more please.
ReplyDeleteMore of what? How about a name to go with the story? Without a name, this story is no better than the string of other seemningly convincing bigfoot tall tales.
DeleteTwo key characteristics of this report are the simian-like swaying, and the creature taking 2-3 steps and "was gone." There are so many reports of the thing disappearing after a few steps, that this aspect alone is worth study.
ReplyDeleteZ!
Uh, that this aspect is added to the story (yet again as it is in numerous bigfoot stories) to make it seem like it fits with what we (supposedly) already know about bigfoot.
DeleteYeah, just like many sightings include a strong horrible smell.
DeleteThe swaying is often a prelude to a strong horrible smell and then a dash for the rest room.
DeleteZorro needs a BFF membership bad.
DeleteThe 'psychic sasquatch' thread will be right up his street.
MMG
WhEn I listen to this, I can here some background chatter, like a tv or some idiot shouting in the background. Very annoying.
ReplyDeleteI fart in your general direction so called Arthur King...
ReplyDelete