The Patterson/Gimlin Creature Is a Real Bigfoot
Is the Patterson/Gimlin creature an extraordinary costume, or an extraordinary reality? Our friend Jay of Bizarre Zoology blog recently watched Bill Munns' presentation at the 2013 Texas Bigfoot Conference and this is what he had to say: "Well my friends, I can now say with even further certainty that the subject of the Patterson Film IS a living, breathing, and bipedal nonhuman primate. It's a long video, but it is worth every second. Thanks to Michael Mayes for bringing this to my attention."
First to!
ReplyDeleteBe a Dick Ryder Platinum Member.^^^
DeleteDrink the Mayor's urine.
DeleteMake man love with Cathiee/John Preston.
DeleteDamn Cobra, you left yourself wide open for this.
DeletePwned like Mulder in the dark.
DeleteYeah I did. Lol
DeleteIt's all good bro.That's what Bigfoot Evidence is all about.
DeleteTrue dat. True dat.
Delete- stand-in guy
I like turtles
DeleteIf you pause at 23:26 you see boobies......hee..hee..
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idy4z176dNs
DeleteCheck out this short but sweet NEW sasquatch cartoon (approx.1:00)
Something different!
Posted here by ME! Johnnie Lindsey! Check it out!
I like tittles
DeleteI'm Johnnie Lindsey welcome to Jackass
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExgUWpvgAs0
DeleteRidiculous bigfoot sighting!
Today is kinda slow but....
Check this out!
From ME! Johnnie Lindsey!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bISLP4IJRUw
DeleteThis mysterious figure just came up!
Check out this strange figure on film!
When you post videos like these you lose credibilty
DeleteWould someone please shut Johnnie Lindsay up.
DeleteThe creature is a real.... man in a monkey suit
ReplyDeleteOh so clever..... Not!
DeleteI thought it was.... alright
DeleteWell, it is a man in a monkey suit.
DeleteBetter than a monkey in a man suit like I used to be.
DeleteI sued a monkey and got every banana he owned
DeleteYou mean every banana he pwned. By the way, congratulations on spelling "banana" correctly.
DeleteMonkey suit?
DeletePatty doesn't look anything like a monkey.
Show us the suit to prove your point, recreate the creature, and the film, then come and talk to us.
As uaual, you have nothing.
Do you like it?
I'll take what I can get
DeleteHey, Skeptard alert guy... How about you give us a Sasquatch so we can compare it to the film? No? Got nothing?
Delete^No, but at least he's liking it
Delete^You don't get it. The onus is on you to build a time machine and set it for Oct 67 and film Roger gluing tits on an ape costume...
DeleteMunns:costumes::Ketchum:DNA
DeleteBest analysis ever!
DeleteI was beginning to doubt this film. But now, I realize it is a sasquatch.
Got that right. I don't see how anybody could ever be in doubt that it's no suit unless they don't have a damn clue what they're talking about because they're gullible - or much worse - know very well it's a squatch whatever that species may be yet still deny it knowing that. Suit it's not, not in this case anyway. Bravo work as always, Mr. Munns.
Delete...and LET's GO ISLANDERS!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteBRUINS!
DeleteSecond !
ReplyDeleteIf I saw that thing walking in the woods I'd move right to The City
ReplyDelete"Well my friends, I can now say with even further certainty that the subject of the Patterson Film IS a living, breathing, and bipedal Nothing and You Will Like it."
ReplyDeleteI've been searching for nothing for the last 25 years and I like it.
Deletelol..I thought I saw a pool of blood and Gimlin in the bushes.Guess it was nothing :( ...
DeleteIslanders blow, Rush rules, and Bob H. is the best BF in a suit ever. Kudos!
ReplyDeleteHe blew the walk... didn't kick his feet up the proper 71 degrees. Duh!
DeleteWhy do you like Rush Limbaugh?
DeleteBecause he pwned your mom's tater with his 2 inch python.
Deletepwned ?
DeleteButtHoleonimous owned yet again, maybe the feds or whoever payed him to lie should've realized what a dumb piece of dirt they got on their hands there.
DeleteBigfoot my muscular buttocks.
ReplyDeleteI've seen your buttocks and they are zit and hair covered.
Delete^Musky 'The Tater Invader' Allen.
DeleteYes, Musky here. I nailed Rick, got nothing but I liked it. He didn't.
DeleteLMAO!!!
DeleteUnlike Patty, your butt probably moves.
DeleteFolks, Patty's immobile diaper ass is proof that it's a costume.
True dat. True dat.
Delete- stand-in guy
I can send gifs that show her buttocks movement if you'd like.
DeleteThat sounds hot Jay.
DeleteImmovable ass? OK diaper boy, recreate the costume, recreate the creature, recreate the film, and show us what you've got.
DeleteNothing?
You have nothing?
Are you liking that?
^ rewrite evolutionary theory, several scientific disciplines, and show me your monkey, bro.
DeleteLOL you clowns are checking out Bigfoots ass
DeleteClowns scare me
DeleteI am a cryptotaterholoologist-you're damn right I'm looking at the ass...
DeleteGood thing Patty is a chick, otherwise looking at its ass would be kinda... creepy
DeleteLike the average Joe has the money, materials, and desire to try to recreate the Patty suit.
DeleteJay apparently doesn't believe in Sasquatch!
Delete6.16 the onus is on u to prove that families of bigfoot amble across north America. where is p/g 2/3/4/5 etc.. that's right you have fuck all
Deletethere aren't thousands of bf . are u lot retarded weirdo's. Cleary the answer is yes. put up or shut up, trolling out this 45yer old hoax is old hat. we are in a smaller, digital age. you've got nothing and u know it
Get your own monkey your just jealous we've got one hot tamale.
DeleteHey Anon 10:58:
DeleteA smiley face can lighten up an otherwise drab sentence. Check it out:
6.16 the onus is on u to prove that families of bigfoot amble across north America. where is p/g 2/3/4/5 etc.. that's right you have fuck all :)
MK Davis showed her butt is indeen moving it's right there on film to see if you want to, so give it up trolls you're embarrassing. We know you take spam bribes but it's still embarrassing.
DeleteI never could get around how they got the film developed and ready for viewing 200 miles away in less than 48 hours. I figure its gotta take a few days to have a home movie developed...
ReplyDeleteThe entire story is bullcrap and none of it makes
Deletesense. Add to it Patterson was a broke con-man. I wanted to bleeve, and it is a great hoax, but it is a hoax.
You got it. Patterson was a perenially broke charlatan. He's still hoaxing people 40 years after his death.
DeleteUs skeptards are the perennial hoaxers and con artists. Every day we propagate the hoax that the PGF was a hoax.
DeleteAs you might have noticed from my stunning photograph, I am a highly attractive and persuasive personality.
King Skeptard.
^Excellent point. So THATS how Roger got the film to Deatlys house in time for Sunday brunch.lol...
DeleteMaybe he took it to Walmart one hour photo
DeletePretty good suit for a broke con man.
DeleteAl Deatley financed the film, and made a profit from the touring of it...
DeleteGet lost trolls, why do you troll a site dedicated to something you pretend to think is not real. Answer; because you know it is real and can't handle it otherwise in your black ops work of denial and ridicule as your method but not successful since most if not all footers or folks interested in the subject aren't here anyway, they're in forums somewhere now this place is bottom feeder junk alley.
DeleteI did not realize the evidence for bigfoot was this retarded.
ReplyDelete;)
DeleteWe realized you were though.
DeleteThis film has been proven as a hoax on many levels. First off, the footprints. Patterson in filmed proof of his own hoax.
ReplyDeletehttp://pgfhoax.blogspot.com/
Secondly, the beard growth between the casting scene and the cast display scene. These were not filmed the same day, as claimed by both Patterson and Gimlin.
Third, you have to deal with Krantz notation of Patterson claiming to have made fake footprints and making a film of it, at the time he wouldve been at Bluff Creek.
Fourth, the film developing. This required specialized machines that cost around a million dollars at that time. It was a licensed/copywritten process only performed by Kodak labs that had these machines. The closest one was in Palo Alto California.
Fifth Their claimed timeline, and activities that day conflict with others that saw them that day, and with the film development.
Sixth, Deatley has said it was a fake. (the guy who financed it)
Seventh, you have to deal with Heironimus. He most likely WAS the guy in the suit.
Excuses do not make these things go away. The fact is, the Patterson film was a good hoax, but a hoax indeed. Hucksters will always try to profit from this film, and from bigfoot.
You just pwned the PGF like the FBFB guys in an empty theatre.
DeleteCopy and paste boy.
DeleteCan't think for himself.
Poor lad.
The Patterson/Gimlin film, the Greatest Hoax of the Century!
DeleteThe claim that the PGF was a hoax, is a hoax.
DeleteThe bleevers cant stand it when someone points out the proof. Go ahead, put your hands over your ears and scream until you turn blue.
DeleteWon't change things, and won't make the monkey real.
I'm only responding to one of your points, since I am unfamiliar with the others. Alleged discrepancies in eyewitness testimony do not outweigh the hard evidence of video footage. Witnesses and investigators often lie or make mistakes when recounting or recording details surrounding controversial events. This problem gets exaggerated as time becomes a factor and investigators must rely on secondary sources.
DeleteJust look into some of the literature on the JFK assassination. Both skeptics and conspiracy theorists can point to thousands of pages of documented testimony to support their respective views. It's mind-boggling to try to separate the "facts" from the B.S.
Furthermore, both believers and skeptics have a huge incentive to bend the data to fit their theories. You seem fine believing that PG lied for money and attention, but you don't consider the possibility that Heironimus would do the same.
I'm not saying PG is real; only that eyewitness testimony is unreliable. If the best technical analysis of the actual footage suggests it's a real animal, it doesn't matter so much that a neighbor claimed to see Patterson at the time Patterson claimed to filming a bigfoot. Maybe that neighbor was wrong or drunk or getting the day and time confused or had bad eyesight, or maybe they didn't like Patterson and wanted to discredit him, or maybe they were sick of all the hoopla surrounding the event and wanted the media circus to end. Or maybe the investigator wanted badly to expose the hoax to advance his own career, so he focused on testimony that contradicted the PG story while ignoring the testimony that supported it.
This post was about the footage itself. Maybe you should watch the video and explain my Munns is mistaken instead of changing the subject.
In before too much reading guy shows up!
DeleteCRAP! you are a worthy opponent
DeleteToo much reading
Translation: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Only look at the non-invertible, discrete, 2 dimensional projections of a continuous 3 dimensional event.
DeleteYou are making a mountain out of a molehill: There are problems with the account, no supporting evidence, no bigfoots seen in the area before or since D-day and the submitter,by his own admission, is not credible....
@6:32:00
DeleteTry clicking the link
http://pgfhoax.blogspot.com/
Proof in the film itself.
Lame
DeleteAnother observation: Skeptics dismiss eyewitness reports of Bigfoot encounters; they demand hard evidence instead. When it comes to the PG footage, however, they ignore the hard evidence and put absolute faith in any eyewitness report that challenges PG.
DeleteLeroy Blevins>> Bill Munns
DeleteI went to http://pgfhoax.blogspot.com/.
DeleteI was not impressed. It seems Krantz is the one making a mountain out of a molehill--as is the guy writing that blog. So what if Patterson recorded himself faking tracks? Maybe he was practicing his casting technique or getting b-roll. Lots of documentary makers do that. On the blog, the tone of his writing oozes with condescension, over-confidence, and close-mindedness. Plenty of people raise good objections in the comment section, and he responds with insults. The writer is obviously emotionally invested in being the one to "prove" the hoax. He does not strike me as objective.
As one of the commenters said, maybe Patterson's body is covering the "missing print." The blog writer says, "That's a right footrack, not a left one!" How does he know that? It looks like a left footprint to me. Or maybe there was a tough spot in the mud, and the foot didn't leave a track. By being so confident that "the missing print" proves it's a hoax, he sounds like believers when they say Patty "could not have been faked."
Again, I don't see any skeptics refuting the in-depth analysis by Munns, Meldrum, and others of the alleged sasquatch. Instead they talk about the "missing footprint" or some guy who claimed decades later to be the one in the suit. How does that outweigh the muscles, detail, proportions of the beast?
No bigfoots seen the area since D-Day? I thought other eyewitness accounts are what made Patterson choose that particular location. Even if you're right, so what? If they exist, they obviously move around to avoid human contact.
Patterson is not the most credible witness; I'll grant you that. He had no regular job and some money problems. But really, so what? Do you know how many spectacular scientific discoveries were made by oddballs, drifters, and broke-ass bums? Lots of them. Typically, these are the types of people who are willing to take risks and challenge convention.
Gimlin, on the other hand, is quite credible. He's successful and stayed away from spotlight for many years after the event. That suggests he's not perptuating the hoax for money and attention. Even the skeptic Ranae said on Finding Bigfoot, "He's one the nicest, most genuine people I've ever met." Translation: I don't feel comfortable calling him a liar.
Again, I'm not saying PG is real. But I would like to see a skeptic refute the points being made by Munns in the video above.
^ Served
DeletePGF hoax guy gtfo
Other eyewitness accounts? No. Other HOAXES were the reason he was there. Wallace planted prints during a convention the summer before the PGF was filmed. FACT. So yes, Patty would be the only bigfoot ever reported in the area. Lucky Roger...
DeleteIt will never ever be proven fake OR real
DeleteJust remember the JREF lemmings bleeved all of Kitakaze's lies lock, stock and barrel.
DeleteThey're not exactly the smartest footers in Bigfooting.
LOL@ the patty cakes.
Delete^
DeleteLOL@ the closet bleever.
@ 8:04:00
DeleteAsk Meldrum which footprint it is. Your arguments are hilarious. Just can't take the footprints being fake? Too bad, the reality will set in.
^^ This post is hilarious.
DeleteAnonymous 8:04 wrote, "Do you know how many spectacular scientific discoveries were made by oddballs, drifters, and broke-ass bums? Lots of them."
DeleteReally? Who?
Me. I invented firsting the day after I was fired my job...
DeleteEinstein was working as a patent clerk when he came up with his theory of relativity.
DeleteNikola Tesla had a reputation as a mad scientist and died in relative obscurity; he struggled with debt and money for much of his career.
Herman Melville was so unknown at the time of this death that his obituary called him "Henry" Melville.
The last one is litarature; my points is that people with money problems can achieve great things.
Wikipedia: "Patterson chose the area because of intermittent reports of the creatures in the past and of their enormous footprints near there since 1958. The most recent of these reports was the nearby Blue Creek Mountain track find, which was investigated by journalist John Green, René Dahinden, and archaeologist Don Abbott on and after August 28, 1967.[5] This find was reported to Patterson soon thereafter by local resident Al Hodgson."
DeleteWe know Wallace hoaxed prints. We know Wallace recommended Bluff Creek. But I see no definitive evidence that Wallace hoaxed prints at Bluff Creek.
^^^ Except for the tracks previously photographed at Bluff creek, and BCM that completely matched the stompers Wallace had.
DeletePGF is not a good example to hold up. Too many things have been found, and proven at this day and age. The footprint evidence, the beard, Krantz's documentation, The overwhelming lack of a bigfoot anywhere in the world.
Really? No hide no hair in 2013 and people still want to believe? Bigfoot is god. and religion. It is also a ghost, and an alien. It is all of those social contructs, and mimics them perfectly. Keep on believing, in god, in ghosts, in bigfoot. In reality you know it's not there. It just reassures your mental illness, and gives you false hopes.
No need to worry, everything is just fine... don't feel mentally insufficient because you make up monsters in your mind. "it'll all be ok"
Calm down dude everythings gonna be just fine.
Delete5:42 is the same damn hoax liar haunting youtube with the suit nonsense. Munns just sealed this once again as a genuine unknown being we know proof like this will always bring out the organized trolls here on BFE, just like they did to slam away at the Ketchum DNA results that any footer with a brain would embrace. That case as well as here is under a media truth embargo. It didn't fit into their ape world and proves they're not footers anyway but planted trolls, just like the hoax geek or the rest here, one big organized hoax alright to keep it covered up because squatches evidently are not only a real species but something that must be kept secret. You think it's a suit then answer why it's still the best, why no recreated is attempted apart from Blevins' failed try was made none come close even movie ones suck. Only the most gullible jerk is fooled any longer into the suit lie, it's been proven real beyond the shadow of a doubt yet the agenda trolls prank on because they're on a paid mission.
DeleteYou're the man, Jay. If I were a 17-year old girl, I'd totally let you take me to prom and bang me out.
ReplyDeleteBut you're not, but you would like it ^^
DeleteYou'd get nothing because Jay impotent.
DeleteHe's taking his boyfriend to the prom... Duh!
DeleteI beeleeve you Jay
ReplyDeleteI didn't Munns or MK or my own eyes
not anyone
but you I do beeeleeeve
thank you
I can sleep now.
Thanks for beeleeving me. Don't worry, the Nephilim/giant lemur hybrids will croon you to sleep.
DeleteI'm not believing anything until I hear it from Dr. Matthew A Johnson, one of the most credible people in the bigfoot world.
ReplyDeleteNot to mention modest.
DeleteIf the original suit or a photo of it ever surfaced i would change my mind. Even the recreated suits look like crap compared to the one in the film.
ReplyDeleteSo right.
DeleteThe jesters here forget the crucial aspects of a human body and a bigfoot body, the former will not fit into the dimensions of the latter as every film suit shows they all sport human build dimensions.
Bigfoots have wider set shoulders with much longer arms and torsos that's why they're so tall because it begins from their waist up basically whereas we have short arms and small torsos but longer legs proportioned.
That anatomical fact alone concludes bobwashisname never could've faked it. Read that again, we can't fake bigfoots, period. Try faking those typical bigfoot proportions before you yell fake, there's a reason it's never been tried it's impossible now as for 1967 goes without saying.
Sceptard credo:
ReplyDeleteHoaxers carve dermal ridges into fat fake feet.
Invisible bicycles are real and may be ridden.
Ape costumes are fitted with bones, joints, sinews, tendons, muscles, and meaty flesh which reacts in shockwaves to heavy stepping.
Bob Hilarious is a bloody genius who bought a magic monkey suit off the rack with these attributes (pls see previous point).
Panda bears exist in sizeable numbers throughout the forests of North America, accounting for the Brilliant Biologists' Broadcast on the web declaring that Ketchum samples are riddled with panda DNA.
Ketchum hacked into and crashed her own computer system in order to blame it on outside groups.
For we are the paranoid sceptards.
Bright we ain't.
Right we ain't.
Dim we are
Proven so far!
Durp, urp, oopsie, we are the sceptards.
Footard credo: bleeve in magical 8 foot tall biped that covers its tracks sometimes, hides behind skinny trees, is super intelligent, and turns blurry when cameras are near.
DeleteFootards will correct thousands of empirical peer reviewed articles and well established evolutionary theory with their magic monkey, just you wait.
DeleteA liger is bred for its skills in magic but you already know that and then Travis would bitch about it
DeleteWonder Woman has an invisible jet. Maybe she loaned it to Roger so he could be at Al's house with processed film in time for Sunday brunch.
DeleteMan, I would have loved to been a fly on that wall. Wonder if Green and those guys were in on it, or just desperately wanted to bleeve Roger brought them vindication...
Ain't no Chriss Angel Mindfreak David Blaine Trapdoor shit jumping off here
DeleteWaaaaa! No more liger talk! Waaaaaa!
DeleteEnough with the Sgt Osiris shit !
DeleteAlthough it is funny.
The reason we can't catch these big guys is that they just may not be of this earth, ever considered why this subject or say that of ufos is always denied or ridiculed officially, yep you got it right on the first guess : because authorities know it's all true but of such an origin it's deemed secretive thus far.
DeleteHad these been apes or even nonexisting, there's no way we'd see so much heavy trolling if innocent fantasies by the world's Henry Mays, who'd care right? Yeah you'd leave it alone, nobody in his right mind would waste all that time fighting something like this were it not real and somehow threatening apparently.
The segment starting at 22:37 is by far the best evidence for Patty being real that I have EVER seen! :)
ReplyDeleteI was going to take your word for it, but I'm glad I checked for myself!
DeleteYeah it's good but I think there are better parts.
DeleteMunns is a true American hero proven so yet again.
DeleteI remember watching old BF documentaries late at night when I was a kid There was always a scene when the chick, alone in the house in the middle of the night, would slowly.... open.... the.... front.... door AND BIGFOOT WOULD BE RIGHT THERE!!!!
ReplyDeleteIt happens to me all the time.
DeleteThat scene is from the 70s documentary The Mysterious Monsters. Here's the scene. It was actually the chick's boyfriend who opened the door:
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiQXnR1J7Jg
LOL theres a big crash of glass, an arm flailing in the window, shit flying around and he says what is it? hilarious
DeleteAmbulating involves the buttocks and back muscles.
ReplyDeleteThe PGF "subject" demonstrates a static back.
The PGF "subject" demonstrates static buttocks.
Big. Fucking. Diaper-assed. Hoax.
I run out of dryer sheets now my clothes have static cling
DeleteIt's called subcutaneous fat.
DeleteIt doesn't matter how often trolls like 7:03 repeat the same lies, MK Davis proved them all wrong ages ago just go check out his videos showing and proving how Patty's butt cheeks indeed move. It's right there as visual proof for all to see, making the empty diaper balloon joke the thinnest hoax claim by now and solidly blown into pieces.
DeleteThe famous frame 352 is probably the greatest tell that this is a suit.
ReplyDeleteTHE PADDING SHIFTS, YOU MORONS!
Obvious suit is obvious.
I beg to differ; a moron is a person with the intellect of a 8 to 12 year old. I believe the word we are looking for is imbecile, a person suffering severe retardation with an intelligence in the 3 to 7 year old range.
DeleteLame
DeleteI love when people use the word "obvious" to describe their position on a controversial issue. If it's so obvious, why is there so much controversy?
DeleteYeah but the obvious guy uses obvious twice so it has to be true.
DeleteObviously.
DeleteLOL. Moronic bigfoot true believers don't even recognize common internet memes and constructs. Obvious morons are obvious.
DeleteButt hurt kid upset that grown ups don't use baby talk like him, put whatever label you like on it calling slang a meme only makes you sound cool to other online gaming school kids.
DeleteYes you're sadly correct there, were it not much worse I'm afraid as these immature fools are not merely some kids off school no they're adults with families probably yet here they are ranting on about suits they know nothing of but instructed to fake an interest in because it's their damn secret ops job. Can you imagine that, actually receiving checks for this madness of opposing the idea of this elusive species pretending it can't get caught on camera when it naturally can hoping somehow rather naively they can convince anybody against evidence saying the opposite.
Delete(clive squashy)
ReplyDeleteSeems everybody has something to hide...cept me and my monkey.
So if Munns took the opposite position, just how many bigfoot conferences do you think he'd be booked at?
ReplyDeleteIf that were his full-time job, you might have a point, but it isn't, so you don't.
DeleteOhyeah? What does Bill Munns do full time these days?
DeleteBigfoot conferences are there in favor of this species not to disprove it, dummies.
Deletebigfoot
ReplyDeleteWhen peoples laugh at gollywobbler slobber on my underhair...
I gets May-Aaaad !!
ROARRRRRRRRRRRRR !!!
insect
ReplyDeletefeed the hungry
me
the pgf only proves one thing...apparently it's easier to put a bigfoot suit on an asshole than it is to put an asshole on a bigfoot suit
ReplyDelete?
DeleteI've got this site finally figured out. Most posters, especially "firsters" are really all a bunch of pre or adolescent males most likely raised by single mothers who are working hard to support their family while their children sit on their computers all day like a bunch of cyber Alfred E. Newmans chirping like idiots and laughing like imbeciles every time one of them makes the equivalent of a cyber fart. Then, every once in a while, something interesting happens (like subject film analysis), and some interesting facts and theories are discussed by real people in an intelligent and thoughtful manner. Bigfoot isn't anthropology, most former aforementioned Newmans are the interesting anthropology on "Bigfoot Evidence".
ReplyDeleteyou said fart uh huh huh huh huh
DeleteHello ..Newman!
DeleteI like turtles
Deleteit's bigfoot, it's a joke. This is a blog about jokes. Get a grip.
DeleteStupidhead.
DeleteToo much reading
ReplyDeleteThem big hairy ass fake tits and diaper butt coupled with the horizontal line at the hip in which Munns attempts to make a straw man argument for are conclusive proof its just an old monkey suit.
ReplyDeleteWorthless video, them big hairy ass tits!
I love me some big ass hairy titties!
Deletemonkeys are funny
DeleteOnly trolls claim bigfoots are monkeys, try putting on a monket suit - tails on that species as reminder - and see how many witnesses you'll convince it's a bigfoot. None would be a fair guess. Humans have hairy chests and bigfoots most likely being hominin means hairy females have hairy chests, including the breasts. Duh.
DeleteThe Bill for Funns report is a lot of nonsense.
ReplyDeleteI know right? How long has that guy been working on said report? Like years.... and still cannot decide on a lens or subject height. All he does is keep asking for more funding, and making more ridiculous presentations as it goes along.
DeleteBouncing breasts Munns? Really?
That's how you're going to prove the suit was real?
You've hit a new low.
Nice try government paid hoax loser, keep denying real life there in Goofy Park.
DeleteThe number of posts here alone, proves that the James Randi clowns and the cryptozoology.com paid disinformation artists, clean off their benches in order to flood Bigfootevidence with their carefully choreographed lies, whenever the PG film comes up. Destroying the credibility of that film is No.1 priority on their Mission Statement.
ReplyDeleteStanton Friedman’s 4 rules of Fraudulent Debunkers are:
1. “What the public doesn’t know, I won’t tell them.”
2. “Do not bother me with the facts, because my mind is made up.”
3. “If you can’t attack the data, then attack the messenger, it’s easier”.
4. “Do your research by proclamation, because investigation is too much trouble”.
Clowns scare me
DeleteI'm a third string disinformation artist but if I work hard and apply myself theres a good chance I can start next season
DeleteSon, I'm sorry, but we have to let you go.
DeleteI believe that bigfoot might exist, but the PGF film was created by a shady, broke con man. So, I'm just supposed to pretend that doesn't matter?
DeleteWe're supposed to believe that driveling snot about 'yeah bigoots may be real but not the pgf blabla' ? You're supposed to use your head and weigh the evidence in favor of it being real, or in favor of not. If you're intelligent enough you'll see the pros are greatly in favor of no hoax and the cons being the easy assembled hoax lies.
DeleteDidn't some moron named Ben River claim to have proved the film was a fake but he was the only shithead who bleeved his own evidence ?
ReplyDeleteApparently Biscardi agreed with him and had him on their show where they spoke about it. The theories are not anything new. River just put it into a condensed post on that blog with the Krantz post. Matt Crowley was one of the first people to mention the foot print not visible, and the beard issue has been brought to the attention of many over the years.
DeleteMeldrum tried to explain it by saying Patterson must have shot that film in Yakima later. (despite Patterson and Gimlin claiming it was shot that day at Bluff Creek)
The issues mentioned on that blog were accurate, but nothing new. Those points are often overlooked by proponents. There is proof the footprints were faked as claimed, but that does not prove the film subject was faked. Only that the footprints were.
Michael Dennett wrote a great article on the footprints concerning the weight and depth of the prints in comparison to a horses. That was another claim of Gimlins and Pattersons, the film subjects prints were "deeper than a horses" and Gimlin went on to specify how much approximately his horse weighed in a later interview. Ben River also recorded a phone conversation with Gimlin where Gimlin stated he was the one who filmed Patterson making the cast and that it was at Bluff Creek.
So how were the prints in comparison to the horses?
DeleteAccording to Gimlin in several interviews they were "deeper than the horses" even though a horses hoof has a quite small contact presentation compared to a large flexible foot.
DeleteIt is explained well in this article by Dennett. A good compliment to the footprint evidence highlighted in Rivers article.
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/science_and_footprints/
Fact= we will never know 100% if its real or fake.
ReplyDeleteWe need new evidence. We need a body. Period.
We might know 100% if someone produces the suit or if Gimlin says it was a hoax.
DeleteAny body? I ain't got no body...
DeleteSome needs to stick Gimlin with some truth serum.
DeleteThe main thing Gimlin knows, is this was no hoax but a living squatch woman only the circumstances are somewhat doubtful as some suspect there's more bad realities to the event, not necessarily a massacre but shots fired on contract maybe a logging or park/government order. This is obviously why so many are against the truth here and invent their costume excuses, they never dreamed we'd one day have technology showing so many details on a once tiny screen black dot now hoping the public will buy into that only most are now too smart.
DeleteThen why do the bottom of Patty's feet look like cardboard?
ReplyDeleteThey don't except to assholes to others they look like the typical humanlike Bigfoot feet.
DeleteWhen am Survivor man gonna go out and look for big ape? He maybe find him?
ReplyDeleteLaughinginhisgravefoot
ReplyDelete?
DeleteSimple Do Computer mouse button Removal Ideas and
ReplyDeleteMethods
Also visit my blog post :: euro casino
Extravagance New Virginia homes In Kent -- March 2011 Revise
ReplyDeleteMy site ... nicotine
Whoever said god is a delusion, don't do that.
ReplyDeleteNo one is going to want to talk to you if you make negative comments like that about people's beliefs. Also there is a lot of good evidence that shows that god does exist. Atheists however, have no evidence god doesn't exist.