Thursday, June 26, 2014

I've Never Seen Patty So "Stabilized" In My Life, Have You?


M.K. Davis has done it again. Using his magical stabilization tool, he has produced one of the most stable footage of the Patty creature ever. Roger Patterson claimed he was running after the creature after falling off his horse, but in this highly stabilized version, the film capture is as smooth as silk. Check it out:



188 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. ^thinks this a real creature in which case thousands of these are strolling around america.

      Delete
    2. Very busy day today! But I'll leave you all with this and I'll be back later to respond to every dribble...

      GOT MONKEY SUIT?








      ... And let's not fall into a supression of evidence fallacy here now.

      ; )

      Delete
    3. Monkey suits exist. Pwned.

      Delete
    4. It must be nice to live in a world of unicorns, bigfoot, and fairy tales.

      Delete
    5. Monkey suits that subtract from proportions don't exist... Only in the minds of those requiring chronic reasurance.

      It's nice living in a world where top genticists are conducting hominid studies. Unicorns don't leave tracks.

      Delete
    6. Patty is within human proportion range. As proven by Blevins and tom pate. Your proportion argument is dead in the water. A non starter.

      Delete
    7. So what will be your excuse when Sykes gives you nothing? You must have been planning a couple to fall back upon if Sykes doesn't have anything on bigfoot.

      Delete
    8. Blevins is an embarasment;

      http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/leroy-blevins-unfinished-aborted.html?m=1

      ... Ha ha ha ha ha!!

      When Bill Munns compares the proportions of Patty to a 'normal human'; we see something very obvious in the junction of two points of the right leg when pasted on top of eachother, from the hip socket. It is here where you have an amazing example of the posture of the upper and lower leg of Patty; the upper leg is far shorter. The crotch area of Patty is far more higher than the average human norm and like Bill States; "when you put a costume on, it always adds, it never subtracts". If you were to put the 'costume' on a human being, then we would expect the crotch area to be lower than what is clearly not the case when comparing the proportions. The arm length of Patty is 10% longer than that of a normal human in comparison proportion & scale, the 10% being in the shoulder area. When matching this over that of a normal human, the problem is evident when trying to accommodate this in comparison to a normal human, Patty's knees fall way shorter. Bill even extends this to show the possibility of using football shoulder pads, and it still cannot match the proportions of a normal human. Bill also extends the comparison image's scale of Patty by 25% , but you still have the arm with bending fingers reaching far lower than the proportions of what a normal human can achieve in a suit. The shoulder joint and base of the neck of Patty require to be shifted forward actually into the neck of a normal human for the eyes of the 'mask' to align with normal human proportions. It is therefore impossible to get the mask to fit on the shoulders of a normal human and maintain the rest of the proportions to fit on a normal person in a suit.

      Sykes will always be as good as his samples. If he doesn't have anything I'll dust myself off and maintain that DNA will unlock this mystery in the end. The news out of the camp is encouraging.

      Delete
    9. Joe firstly you assume all humans have the same proportions.

      Secondly you do not know the proportions of patty. You can not measure point to point on a 2d representation of 3d space.

      Thirdly you do not know where the shoulders are if its a suit because the padding adds to the top of the shoulder.

      And lastly you are a moron.

      Delete
    10. No humans have the proportions of Patty... If you can find an example I'll eat my hat.

      Also... We can learn a lot from comparitive scale... A lot.

      Lastly; read my comment, you cannot accommodate a mask.

      You are very welcome.

      Delete
    11. Love how when someone points out Blevins proportions are the same joe tries to sweep that under the rug and diverts to other things about Blevins.

      You got called out on the proportions and you know it.

      Delete
    12. Look at the link... An embarasment. Ha ha ha ha!!!

      Delete
    13. Will dusting yourself off include an apology for months of trying to use it as leverage even though you had no clear idea of what it was about?

      Delete
    14. 2 examples of humans with the same proportion:

      Blevins
      Tom Pate.

      (Pretty much all humans in fact) but there are photos of both of these in a patty pose matching exactly.

      Now you have to give me just 1 example of an actual living breathing animal that matches patty. If not you lose. Again.

      Delete
    15. Dan he won't. Months before the documentary aired he used to do the exact same thing. "Sykes is coming blah blah blah". Then the pathetic guy refused to acknowledge he was wrong and refused to apologise. No difference here.

      Delete
    16. I did not realize that patty has such a big a$$. Some real kadonkedonk goin on there. Bubble but

      Crank it up !!!!

      http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_JphDdGV2TU

      MMC

      Delete
    17. No humans have the proportions of Godzilla either. Oh no, there goes Tokyo...

      Delete
    18. Tom Pate?

      Sorry, the arms aren't as long, neither is the upper leg as short or the groin area as high. You can do all sorts of line markings with reducing width percentage in a photograph too! Just like Blevins did!

      We also don't see it in motion... I wonder why that is? And and anyway, don't we need a monkey suit to put Pate in??

      I'll apologize for your stupidity. You not knowing the long term study is still being conducted is not anyone else's fault. If Sykes doesn't deliver you'll have the same old me making your little lives that extra bit figity!

      Delete
    19. Arms aren't as long? Check the picture.

      Wow you are dumb.

      Delete
    20. Wait a minute!!! Daniel C. is a Homosexu*l?

      Delete
    21. I had a dream in which seven bigfoot climbed seven towers and ate seven DQ Megadogs and chanted 'say it no and say it loud, Sykes was here and Joe got plowed'.

      Wudduzit mean?

      Delete
    22. That means you just posted the best comment in bfe history.

      Delete
    23. Thanks. Should have been 'Say it now'.

      Delete
    24. You can actually see the hip waders crystal clear in this "stabilized" segment, for the first time I can clearly tell it is a man in a suit. Before viewing this version I was open to the possibility of it being real but thanks to M.K. Davis, he has opened my eyes to the obvious hoax the PGF is.

      Delete
    25. Ok!!

      Did you really think I wasn't gonna be this thorough? Got some free time now and will proceed in going into more detail...

      Blevins recreation hasn't the same muscle tone & hair texture and skin folds. Plus, the pictures you see the Blevins suit have had the width reduced by 5%. If we can only just make something a little close to Patty now... Then there's simply no way a Rookie film maker could have made a suit that good back then. If anything; Blevins' suit has helped to strengthen the claim that Patty is real, hominid flesh and blood. Blevins also used materials not available to Roger in 67, and it merely fuels my argument more than yours in the end, so I must thank you for that really.

      And 6:10... Yes, I did look at the picture and it confirms everything I say about it!

      To the Mr Butthurt (who's due a meltdown very soon) and Danny Boy; would you apologize if Sykes does deliver? I think not.

      ; )

      I'll be wrong once the full long term study shows me I'm wrong. It's hilarious and no bigger sign of stupidity that people should maintain the study is closed when Sykes' camp insist it isn't. Not a good sign for what might happen should Sykes deliver you something attributed to a living hominid... Eh?

      Delete
    26. I think I will takes Sykes word over someone from "bigfootology". Yes you read that right " bigfootology". Fking hilarious.

      Delete
    27. And what research organization is Sykes an active member of?

      That's ok... You're learning all the time at least...

      Delete
    28. "Active member"

      Another joeism.

      Delete
    29. Yes, yes... Like always, your lack of information is my problem.

      What a twonk you are. Look it up.

      ; )

      Delete
    30. Sykes said in his documentary (about bigfoot) that he found no bigfoot.

      He also had a good laugh at footers with Evans stating how bigfoot groups were knocking back and forth to each other and each thinking it was a bigfoot.

      Ah yes that obliteration. I remember it clearly.

      Delete
    31. http://www.bigfootbuzz.net/rhettman-issues-statement-about-sykes-dna-project/

      All your arguments buried in the link provided.

      No, no... The pleasure's all mine.

      Delete
    32. This is the same guy involved with Ketchum and the general circus show that is footery.

      Sykes says no bigfoot that's good enough for me.

      Delete
    33. Whit people unite

      http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/06/26/video-woman-violently-beaten-as-toddler-tries-to-intervene/

      MMC

      Delete
    34. No way is that a man in a suit ! no no no no no no no no no !!! xx

      Delete
    35. What a child!

      No proportions! Is shown proportions on a demonstration...

      ...but the fur isn't good! (Secretly avoiding the whole proportion being the same)

      Get a grip dude

      Delete
    36. Sorry!

      The proportions aren't the same. Special pleading won't help your cause. But whilst you're on the topic of other elements of the puzzle, I'll play...

      Even if the proportions were an exact match, you'd have to find a suit to match the texture and muscle tone. Same can be said for the other way around. So far, there has not been one example of one half of the puzzle being matched me alone both sides of the puzzle, which leads one to assume that possibly... Just maybe... The prospect of a broke cowboy defying 46 years worth of special effects and technological advances, with materials that weren't even available then, might be a little too much to cling to as a realistic argument. Even more so when you have track accumilation from the exact site, in turn that is consistent with countless other examples that have been verified by methods that have excelled wildlife biology to the reliable scientific medium it is today.

      Delete
    37. boo hoo hoo

      special pleading for bigfoot! because he's special!

      Delete
    38. To claim that consistent science should be cast aside for preferences... Is special pleading... And I'm not the one crying.

      ; )

      Delete
    39. It's the funniest thing after the Packham sham! Ha ha!!

      Delete
    40. You keep acting like Blevins example is anything except for a proportion example. It's not 100% Patty! No crap! It's proportions are the same as Patty, and Joe said it above, nothing will ever be good enuff fer him.

      Ol lady Patterson could claim it all a hoax and reveal a suit but joe would claim Bob h got to her and the suit clearly didn't have the texture of the one in the film!

      Delete
    41. "It's proportions are the same as Patty..."

      http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/leroy-blevins-unfinished-aborted.html?m=1

      ... This is your best argument, look at it, it's desperate and to maintain it shows lack of integrity. Laughable... And no, nothing will be good enough until they replicate at least a little of both of the elements that make the footage as unique as it is; texture AND proportions. Anything less is clutching at straws and as the years role by, even more realistic of it being a suit.

      Delete
    42. You are the best when it comes to lacking integrity and clutching at straws.

      Delete
    43. I'm the one that has a list of primatologists, anthropologists, wildlife biologists & conservationists backing my argument, remember.

      There is a reason why you are only presented with edited, reduced by 5% images as opposed to running footage... I wonder why? Because the muscle tissue in the back has nothing in the way of even remotely mimicking the moving tissue of the subject in the PGF! Having to reduce the width by 5% is pretty much as damning as you can get when you are looking at 2D photographs; this is something I'm sure you are not aware of. The muscle tone is not even comparative, neither the spinal erectors and the upper leg proportions are not the same as Patty. Blevins is a good effort but far from accurate and used materials not available to Roger in 1967, and it merely fuels my argument more than yours in the end.

      Also... Neck muscles at the bottom of this link;

      http://www.artistfirst.com/bigfootcentral.html

      Also... Something the Blevins doesn't come anywhere near mincing, extended toes;

      http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8zIE3ZPvCLY

      Delete
    44. Shame you don't have the consensus of science.

      Delete
    45. Sometimes mainstream science needs to time to come to terms with regime changing concepts.

      Delete
    46. Now that I can see the creature a little more clearly, I believe and have always believed it is a real Bigfoot. Why is it so hard for everyone to agree this is a real Bigfoot? In the late 60's it would be impossible for the average person to buy a bigfoot suit anywhere. You could only get one by having the suit made by hand and that would have cost thousands of dollars. Why would anyone go thru so much trouble for a hoax? These creatures exist by the thousands just in northern California alone. Some people ask well if these creatures exist then why hasn't anyone found a carcass ? I don't know anyone who has come across a bear carcass but we know they exist don't we? These creatures are very close to being human and may have as much intelligence as a human. If they don't want to be found then no one will find them. That doesn't mean no one can see them.

      Delete
    47. Martin Zuniga, people don't want to believe Patty is a real bigfoot because there's never been hard evidence of a real bigfoot prior to or since the P-G film. Why is that so hard for you to understand? It's just common sense. As for your bear examples: (1) search google images for 'bear carcass' and you will see lots of bear carcasses. Google image search for 'bigfoot carcass' or 'sasquatch carcass' and see what you get. If you find ONE example of a bigfoot carcass please report back here with the link. (2) Search Youtube for 'bear in forest' and you see lots of bears living, breathing and going about their business in the forest. Do a Youtube search for 'bigfoot in the forest' and you get copious amounts of hoaxes, misidentifications, blurry blobs and just plain nothings, but no examples of living breathing bigfoots easily identifiable like the bear videos are. Everybody believes bears exist because we see examples of them everywhere and they have been scientifically studied.

      You say there are thousands of bigfoots in Northern California and that they are close to human and intelligent. I'm sorry but you have no basis for this observation because BIGFOOTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO BE OBSERVED. I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm just saying they are not being studied so you can't verify any claims about how many there are or how smart they are or whether they are this, that or anything. People who sprout information about any kind of characterisitic about bigfoot is either making it up, guessing, hoping, dreaming or just repeating the theory of someone else who is doing the same. You cannot study something you can't observe.
      If you can't get close enough to film one clearly then you can't build theories about who, what or where they are. This is not rocket science.

      Delete
    48. Martin, you ask why would someone go to all this trouble for a hoax, but what you have to remember is Patterson was somewhat obsessed by the Big Foot phenomena, and he wrote books on Big Foot and wanted funding to make a Big Foot movie........and that is why he hired the cine camera. After Patterson filmed the creature he was making negations with tv broadcaster all over the world to broadcast his footage.........so the quick answer to your question is MONEY!

      Delete
    49. Ok!!

      For starters, the statement that there was no hard evidence prior to the PGF is hogwash. We have archaeological and anthropological studies by institutions such as the Smithsonian and the Scientific American that have uncovered giant human remains in areas prior to the industrial agricultural boom exhausting those areas for gain. There are also instances where tracks have been found, and there were tracks found on many occasions with some native tribes referencing 'Bigfoot' in their own language.

      "In 1932, Ellis Wright found human tracks in the gypsum rock at White Sands, New Mexico. His discovery was later backed up by Fred Arthur, Supervisor of the Lincoln National Park and others who reported that each footprint was 22 inches long and from 8 to 10 inches wide. They were certain the prints were human in origin due to the outline of the perfect prints coupled with a readily apparent instep."

      "During World War II, author Ivan T. Sanderson tells of how his crew was bulldozing through sedimentary rock when it stumbled upon what appeared to be a graveyard. In it were crania that measured from 22 to 24 inches from base to crown nearly three times as large as an adult human skull. Had the creatures to whom these skulls belonged been properly proportioned, they undoubtedly would have been at least 12 feet tall or taller."

      What this entails is a subject that buries it's dead, has culture and in turn has the evasion skills and capacity to maintain burials. Considering 70% of the US in covered by wilderness, you might now get an understanding of how difficult it is to locate such burials.

      Shannon, it's rhetorical to the extreme when you suggest photographs are not there when you clearly have a disposition to deny those sources out of hand.

      Martin... Patterson researched Bigfoot and had a very natural interest for years, this is something that takes researchers out from the library and into the forests. He was also going to film a documentary, not a movie.

      Are we condemning a man purely because he was successful? How else is someone to film a Bigfoot in the 60's without renting a camera?? If you had just filmed a living breathing hominid, whilst fighting cancer and trying to provide for your family, would you not react the same way???

      Delete
    50. And by addressing Martin, I obviously meant that Wolf guy.

      Delete
    51. Hi Joe! There is a reason Bigfoot/Sasquatch is not a scientifically recognized animal, and it's not due to lack of anecdotal evidence. I do not dispute that evidence as you have described exists but I also recognize that it is not enough to conclusively identify the species existence as a scientific fact. I would not mind at all if Bigfoot is at some time properly identified and scientifically recognised as a species but the information we have at this stage is insufficient to do so (otherwise we would not be having this discussion). Anecdotal, circumstantial and/or inconclusive evidence is insufficient for indisputable identification of Bigfoot. I'm not saying all the evidence is wrong, it's just inconclusive at this stage. But the topic here is 'Patty'. The P-G film itself is not hard evidence despite many people wanting it to be. Despite the visual 'proof' you see in the film there is also visual 'proof' it is a suit. You see muscle tone in one leg, I see bagginess in the other. I see a static, strangely-shaped butt - you see moving muscles in the same footage. People cannot universally agree this film is genuine and it appears that what is observed is often influenced by a pre-existing belief that is it real or not. Since there's never been any equal or better moving or still images of a purported bigfoot prior to or after the P-G film it is, in my opinion reasonable to state there has never been any hard evidence that bigfoot exists, and by hard evidence I mean that which equally stands up to both casual and scientific scrutiny.

      Delete
    52. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    53. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    54. There is absolutely not one thing in your comment I don't agree with. What I will add however, is there has been a refusal by mainstream science to look at what evidence there is and to in turn apply legitimate efforts, and this one of the main reasons why these sources of evidence hasn't snowballed into something significant. We can get to the bottom of this if mainstream science recognized consistent scientific method and stopped laughing.

      Thanks Shannon!

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B002UZNGCM?pc_redir=1403562334&robot_redir=1

      Delete
  3. Mk Davis does footers no favours. It looks a lot less like a bloke in a suit if viewed how roger intended (shakey)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dat ridiculous turtle shell diaper butt and thigh subduction tho

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.meandmydiabetes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/BMI-Pear-Shape-Ass.jpg

      No no There is no way anything could have a butt so big hmmm hahaha go use the internet this took 2 seconds to find.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  5. World Cup prediction:

    Germany 4-2 USA

    and bigfeets gets the ol' goose egg

    ReplyDelete
  6. That Patty's so stabilized, she must be doin' lithium.

    ReplyDelete
  7. That is pretty damn stabilized if I do say so.Still can't tell what it is though.
    Mike H.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Joe and everyone.
      Been busy.
      I still can't dismiss Patty as real or a suit.
      Like for her to be real than just someone in a suit.
      I honestly can't tell either way.
      Mike H.

      Delete
  8. Obliterated by the complete lack of a single actual bigfoot anywhere ever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Got monkey suit? No?? Then there's your 'monkey'.

      Obliterated.

      Delete
    2. So because I don't have a monkey suit bigfoot is real? Take your medication please.

      Delete
    3. Nope... Because you don't have a monkey suit that incooporates proportion subtraction and organic texture, 47 years afer all technological and SFX advances... Bigfoot is real.

      Proceed with the therapy.

      Delete
    4. See rest of thread for proportion obliteration.

      Delete
    5. Must have missed that... You tripping out again old boy?

      All points covered!

      Delete
    6. Covered by you crying about it? Haha nice try.

      Delete
    7. Who's crying? This is one of my favourite things to do... You learnt some things today, you should be proud.

      Delete
    8. I learnt mental illness is no laughing matter

      Delete
    9. Be sure to pass that info on to your therapist.

      Delete
  9. This is the only real video of BF, I have ever seen! FFS!
    Many a time I comment here as to this creature being a hoax!
    This video was what started it all, I believe it to be some type of viable hybrid / meaning it has the capacity to reproduce.
    It must be a hybrid, this would explain its enormous size and strength. But are they still out there? IDK FFS!
    My hope is no one ever finds them, if they are even out there anymore FFS!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is a hoax. Check out the threads on the jref about it. Been put to bed, buried for many many years. Not to mention the scientists in the 60s who called it out as a hoax straight away.

      Delete
    2. Shall we mention the list of scientists that endorse it now?

      I have never, ever seen any argument from JREF fundemalists that condemns that footage... And nothing I can't handle.

      Got monkey suit?

      Delete
    3. You should go challenge them on it, since it's your favorite subject, instead of bad mouthing them from afar. All you would need is 2 or 3 minutes to dispatch degreed skeptics.

      Delete
    4. I don't need to, every time their best arguments have been posted here I've taken them apart from afar. They're rude and quite frankly scare the living crap out of me. Who would want to be in the same forum as fundementalist quasi-religious angries?

      (Shudder)

      Delete
    5. GRAYs making hybrids - thats the KEY....
      the GRAYs

      Delete
  10. Here you go Joe

    http://orgoneresearch.com/2009/10/19/does-the-patterson-gimlin-film-subject-exhibit-an-inhuman-gait/

    Ouch.

    Dat obliteration tho

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again! Thank of for cut and paste...

      "Sorry, the arms aren't as long, neither is the upper leg as short or the groin area as high. You can do all sorts of line markings with reducing width percentage in a photograph too! Just like Blevins did!

      We also don't see it in motion... I wonder why that is? And and anyway, don't we need a monkey suit to put Pate in??"

      Delete
    2. Joe is now denying that straight lines are straight. You can't make this up.

      Delete
    3. No, I'm using 'skepticism' to deny what's plain in front of your eyes. The proportions do not match and we don't see the subject in motion. This being a massive ref flag because the proportions might have been altered. We know this from fact because Blevins resorted to it.

      Delete
  11. No amount of stabilization will change the fact that in real time it looks like a guy in a suit complete with obvious costume features such as a unrealistically padded, non-moving butt, weird horizontal crease thing on the thigh, and a face that looks a lot like a mask. But apparently when you zoom in, "enhance" and flip backwards and forwards between frames you can see all this "evidence" of muscle movement, butt crack motion and even (if you are MK Davis) braided hair and bullet wounds. What's the difference between someone enhancing Patty to show evidence of life, and another who enhances shadows and blurry blobs in forest photos to supposedly reveal bigfoot faces? It looks like a guy in a suit, it doesn't behave like an animal, the backstory points to a fraud, the "enhancements" are dodgy and nobody can agree on whether a man in a suit could match the anatomical features or not. Hardly strong evidence yet this is the best visual evidence that bigfoot exists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Shannon Dubois. And it's a fact that over half of bigfoot sighting are bears. The rest are simply made up for money or attention.

      Delete
    2. fact?? about over half of the sightings being bears?where are theses studies + proof? PROVE IT amusing

      Delete
    3. And the skeptics maintain enthusiasts see things that aren't there?

      The 'unrealistically padded'... Why have all efforts, even a BBC budget failed to accomplish this so easily attainable passed fabric? From a 'broke cowboy', surely it must be so easy for someone to knock a replica up in their garage, right? The 'non-moving butt' is in fact a butt that does move, as we can see here;

      http://youtu.be/wQr922oWdgY

      ... Whilst the size of her backside is consistent with thousands of reports, not to mention a piece of footage that shows a matching specimen, complete with big butt, achieving stealth purpose of normal human capabilities, in the Leaping Russian Yeti.

      The 'weird horizontal crease' simply isn't there, the 'thing on the thigh' could quite easily either be an I fury or an anomaly from the footage, and you cannot fit the head proportions of the 'mask' on a normal human. This has actually been attempted by a costume expert of 30 years whilst the arm proportions even with shoulder padding to not allow for a mask, complete with neck muscles that move in conjunction with spinal erectors, to sit on the shoulders with viewable eye sockets for waking and seeing where he subject is going.

      There is no bigger claim to denial to state that ou annoy see muscle time and movement in the subject above. The subject does not behave like animal because it isn't an animal, and she reacts precisely how a wild one would with a gun pointed at her (two including her primitive understanding of what a camera is).

      The backstory, from Greg Long, has been proven to be as unreliable as any claim of a backstory is, with key interviewees coming forward to state that things they said in interviews was changed and manipulated. You see... There's money in hoaxing a hoax. Not to mention a 'costume expert' used who has to hire an expert to make a monkey suit that looks nothing like Patty, and a drink cowboy who's contradictions about 'the suit' are as hilarious as his demands for being paid.

      Oh! And we have this;

      Peer-reviewed Science Proving the Patterson-Gimlin Film is not of a Bigfoot Costume but a Novel Primate Species.

      http://www.isu.edu/rhi/index.shtml

      ... With some of the leading conservationists, primatologists, wildlife biologists and anthropolists in the world on the honorary board.

      Delete
    4. Haha desperate times and even a link to the RHI.

      Scraping the barrel there old boy?

      Delete
    5. Desperate times? You're on a Bigfoot blog frantically trying to deny a monkey suit-less subject with scientific backing?

      (Sigh)

      You really are special aren't you?

      Delete
    6. No scientific backing you liar. Quit spewing your lies.

      Delete
    7. http://www.isu.edu/rhi/index.shtml

      Unfortunate for you.

      Delete
    8. You just never get any further along, do ya? It's been like 2 years now that you have been saying the same things and nothing has changed. You just now claimed you have scientific backing when you know that's just not true, because it it were you wouldn't need to spend so much time here trying to convince people of it.

      We all come here because of some form of interest in the subject or the field but there is no need to continually fabricate your own version of the facts.

      I think you need a vacation from bigfoot, a vacation from life, just some time to not think about anything but the day at hand.

      Delete
    9. Honorary Board Members;

      George Schaller, PhD is recognized as the world's preeminent field biologist and conservationist, studying wildlife for over 50 years throughout Africa, Asia and South America. He is a senior conservationist at the Bronx Zoo-based Wildlife Conservation Society.

      John Bindernagel, PhD
      Courtenay, BC, Canada

      Todd Disotell, PhD
      New York University New York, NY

      Colin Groves, PhD
      Australian National University
      Canberra, Australia

      Chris Loether, PhD
      Idaho Sate University
      Pocatello, ID

      Jeffrey McNeely, PhD
      Chief Scientist IUCN - World Conservation Union
      Gland, Switzerland

      Lyn Miles, PhD
      University of Tennessee, Chattanooga

      John Mionczynski
      Wildlife Consultant
      Atlantic City, WY

      Anna Nekaris, PhD
      Oxford Brooks University
      Oxford, England

      Ian Redmond, OBE
      Conservation Consultant
      Manchester, England

      Esteban Sarmiento, PhD
      Human Evolution Foundation
      East Brunswick, NJ

      Zhou Guoxing, PhD
      Beijing Museum of Natural History
      Beijing, China

      http://www.isu.edu/rhi/index.shtml

      Delete
    10. I'm not going to give in to your stupid fight instigation anymore, Joe, you believe what you believe. That's cool. You don't need proof to believe in what you want, that's the beauty of it all, I guess.

      RHI is not an accepted Major Scientific publication. It was only recently created and is mostly self-published. Call me when Nature prints this quackery, then we can have an adult discussion.

      Delete
    11. Yes Shannon the muscle mass movement in the right thigh is obvious during the semi-stumble, showing that the leg is not covered by a layer of material. The leg is bare but for the hair.

      Yes Shannon the buttocks do move slightly, visible in rear view frames. On this topic, when will Shawn repost the African girl raised by animals or whatever it was? This girl has an enormous bare butt in the video, and it is oddly almost static as she runs and leaps around. This reflects well on the PGF. Why Shawn persists in refusing to repost this vid which would support this aspect of the PGF beggars belief.

      I guess Shawn doesn't read the comments.

      Andre the Giant played a bigfoot with the best Hollywood could do circa 1976. He was supposedly 7 foot 6, but there is controversy over his height. Nevertheless you have a huge person, a giant, of unusual proportions, with the best Hollywood could do about a decade after the PGF, and the result looks nothing like Patty. It lacks the arm length and shoulder and trap bulk, the muscle movement, and has a flat butt.

      Delete
    12. And Danny... Now you have my total attention as I'm finished work. Yes... I can now pull that extra arm out from behind my back.

      Firstly, you follow me around. When you post, I avoid you... That's because of one thing; I'm not butthurt about our exchanges. Your actions speak a million words Danny. So don't tell me there's no proof, as like your comment suggest, you wouldn't have to argue and chase me around... Would you?

      Secondly... It doesn't matter what RHI is... Unfortunately for us the subject is attacked with dogmatic ideals from the mainstream community and we'll have to wait for a DNA result before anything of the sort is achieved. What we do have in the peer review sourced to you, is a process identical to that of any other, respecting the true processes and exact impartial verification from some of the very best people in their respected fields.

      And that breaks you... I can smell your frustration.

      Delete
    13. Watch: Girl Raised As Bushman Running And Playing With Dangerous Animals [Mind Blowing];

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/watch-girl-raised-as-bushman-running.html?m=1

      Delete
    14. That's nice joe thank you for sharing your feelings with me.

      You can believe what you want to believe, I'm not going to fall for your baiting attempts.

      Delete
    15. ?!

      You're in your own world of you think I even consider you when I'm posting comments? If it bothers you so much, why follow me around Dan? You've made things this personal and regularly express dislike for me, I've even made attempts to smooth things over with you. How am I meant to express myself on a Bigfoot blog at people I disagree with without you getting offended? Nobody's baiting you Dan.

      You leave me scratching my head sometimes boyo. I don't hate you, I just want to talk about Bigfoot.

      Delete
    16. What can I do Dan? You tell me... I'm willing to listen to you. Use my email if you like. There's no problem my end with you.

      You're a cleverer person than me Dan and very funny. I've got a lot of respect for that.

      Delete
    17. Is everything alright Dan? You don't seem yourself??

      Delete
    18. No offence taken or intended Joe, but you seem to have an irrationally positive take on these video clips. You selectively claim some very obvious straight lines lines visible on the subject’s thigh/hip area are insignificant, then you use an extremely poor explanation video claiming to prove buttock muscle movement by cycling back and forwards through a few frames, showing practically nothing. Everything in those frames is moving including other parts of the creature and the background. Seriously, if the butt cheeks were moving as expected during the natural act of walking then we would observe that throughout the entire duration of the walk, not just for a fraction of a second in just a few successive frames.

      The bottom line is that people seek explanations for everything that is observed in the P-G film based on their presupposition that it is either a real bigfoot animal or a guy in a suit. You can choose to assume it is a real bigfoot and then subsequently explain away the ‘anomalies’ but I prefer to assume it is fakery, based on casual observation (it looks like a guy in a suit), the obvious visible anomalies, the back story, and the lack of supporting evidence. You can quote the results of scientific analysis based on measurements all day long but there is huge potential for inaccuracies and assumptions to dramatically affect the outcome of such analyses. Various different parties have reached opposing conclusions from these studies, and it is not immediately obvious which results can be trusted to be unaffected by pre-existing bias or commercial interests. I’m sure that if the P-G subject could be 100% positively identified then we would not be having this conversation and I, like many others would not hesitate to believe the film subject is not just a man in a suit.

      It is important to state that from a purely evidential point of view, the answer to the question of whether bigfoot exists at all does not require the P-G film to be true. Bigfoot’s existence does require some hard evidence from somewhere though - and although it seems many people want the P-G film to be that evidence, it just isn’t.

      Delete
    19. Ok...

      For starters, I am well aware of these lines, but it's not a problem considering firstly; the inumerable examples there are for fat deposits in people (hip area) and secondly; the muscle anomalies we see in the thigh which I will do my best to explain to the best of my abilities, not knowing the subject's exact lower body anatomy. Agreeing with your suggestion that measurements are a potential for inaccuricies, slightly contrary to that we can however notice some very interesting features in comparitive scale; this being the natural next best thing in attaining valuable data that is lacking as a result of the lens issue, the importance of which does not deteriate any. It is with the strange short thigh length not akin to any known human proportions, that we can make an assumption that such anomalies, like the ones you refer to, may be down to an anatomy close to ours but not ours and therefore different. The extended toes in the step are a very interesting feature that leads credibility to an organic limb in motion.

      As for the buttocks' very slight movement, this could quite easily be attributed to a muscle mass twice that of the African girl, for greater reasons for harsher environments over a longer period of long term harsher circumstances. Again, the purpose of showing that video was to show that the mass can be shown to be a normal anatomical, organic feature and though slight, is in conjunction with other features moving lendint to ripped muscle mass (e.g. The back and neck).

      Delete
    20. The preference to start analysis from the position that it is a guy in a suit is one I can relate to, as I for a long time was of the same opinion, prior to looking at the wider facts. It is from the point that off proportions and impressive texture are brought into perspective that one then seeks to explain these features as anomolies, anomolies that have easily attainable answers should you grasp the apparent size of the subject in conjunction with inumerable reports. We must remember that there were tracks attained from the location; physical evidence that lends to credence. I also find myself scratching my head when people suggest that the timeline is an issue, as the footage was flown to it's destination and therefore has a very plausible reason for it's production time.

      The reasons for this source being questioned, is simple, and you have highlighted so in your comments; it's motion. Many with the skeptical mindset expect an animal, a bipedal gorilla to move in a unique way but we are not looking at an animal in that sense. The subject moves like a human because it is a type of human. The cynicism is spawned because it can be universally pointed out, that the head features, spinal erectors and lower back look like that of a gorilla, and therefore attract the comparison of a man in suit when paired with the human like motion; a very rational way of thinkng. It is important to note however, that at the turn of the 20th century when gorillas were first discovered, that the tribes of Alaska used this to best describe what was residing in there forested mountain ranges; "big black gorillas". You must remember that your point that draws upon the uncertainty of argument in the embodiment of modern debate, works against you as much as it does for you.

      Delete
    21. When you have some of the very best conservationists, primatologists and wildlife biologists, not to mention constume experts endorsing a conclusion that supports the authenticity of the footage, then it is important to not ignore that. When it is backed by impartial assemsments like the following, even more a reason to take note;

      "In conclusion, after a thorough review of the copy of the Patterson-Gimlin film provided to me, it is my professional opinion that it represents a live hominid and not a human in a costume. As noted above, there are multiple details of areas on the filmed individual’s body that correspond to those found in a human. Also as stated above, the replication of some of these anatomic landmarks would be difficult or impossible to accomplish in a costume. Additionally, it would take a detailed knowledge of human anatomy to even be aware of some of these anatomical features, let alone possess the technical skills to incorporate them into a convincing costume. That information is only known to a very select percentage of the population, of which I happen to belong.
      While it may be difficult for one to accept that in our modern age there can be a large, undiscovered hominid living in our forests, the facts have to be faced. In the words of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s famous character, Sherlock Holmes: “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

      O. Allen Guinn, III, M.D., F.A.C.S. Aurora Plastic Surgery
      Lee’s Summit, MO

      For the purpose of staying on the imediate topic and not writing on for too long, we'll address other forms of evidence another time, to which there are significant reliable sources.

      Thanks Shannon.

      Delete
  12. That's such a great film. However, doesn't matter how clear the film or picture is, doesn't mater how stabilized the patty film is..... It can always dismissed as hoax. Bottom line,.......no body, no Bigfoot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bottom line bigfoot don't exist.

      Delete
    2. ^
      Are you the mentally ill JREF footer who was pretending to be in another country fighting off insurgents while posting about Bigfoot or are you one of the chimps that believed him ?

      Delete
    3. Believes there are monkeys in the woods^

      Delete
    4. Nope. I'm the mentally unstable BFRO investigator that hasn't bathed in three weeks and sees bigfoot or evidence of bifgoot every 7.3 minutes.

      Delete
    5. Bigfoot do exist.

      Bottom line.

      Delete
  13. Morning Joe and all. I have never been 100% on Patty Cline here. I do lean towards is probably being real. What great work on this clip yet again- it really must take so much time. What is standing out to me? The huge strides, wow they are big. They leg and thighs are so powerful looking, muscular. Also the dark hair/ ponytail?? going down the back of the neck. Interesting, never really noticed that part before. But that a*s. Why is is so static looking? Her butt is her problem area lol!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The physical evidence accusation from the site is what seels it for me.

      Delete
    2. The obvious bloke in a suit + no actual bigfoot anywhere ever is what seals it for me.

      Delete
    3. Seels it? Learn to spell, you idiot.

      Delete
    4. Chick if Shawn will repost the African girl video you'd be amazed by this butt controversy; it answers alot.

      Delete
    5. 8:30... You will notice that if you can't proved a monkey suit... A means of testing the scientifically backed footage, then there is your 'monkey'.

      8:41... Ask your moma to stop pumping you full of pizza and put that money away for an iPhone. Then you'll see how easy it is to make spelling mistakes. You'll have no arguments as well as spelling to tackle though.

      Delete
  14. Replies
    1. Which are easier to see now thanks to the hard work of M.K. Davis! It is so obvious!!

      Delete
    2. "Munns has proven that you can get that exact concave "hip wader" line to appear on real women because of fat deposits."

      http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/42192-pattys-calf-and-tricep/page-2

      Delete
    3. Meaning your argument is void of any weight, because we have perfectly normal humans roaming the streets of the world with the feature you call into question.

      Next?

      Delete
    4. Haha.

      This guy for real?

      So what if a suit feature appears on a human.

      It's still a suit feature.

      Delete
    5. You'll have to excuse him; he's a complete idiot. He's been at this for like a year now,

      Delete
    6. ... A 'suit feature' that you can't prove is just that in said source, because it's a natural physical trait in organic tissue.

      This is too easy.

      Delete
    7. A feature that a primate spending much time in a quadrupedal fashion shouldn't really develop. Then again, zero possibility of Patty being a quadrupedal creature.

      Delete
    8. The line claimed to be hip wader line could be wear line in fur from brushing fingers or thumb during characteristic arm swing during walking. That is, a hair-wear pattern on the thigh.

      The painfully obvious muscle mass movement in right leg when she stumbles precludes any sort of covering, especially the lunatic fantasy of hip waders.

      Delete
    9. Wrong Danny!

      We see a matching specimen in Leaping Russina Yeti achieving amazing stealth, not to mention quadrupedal motion. Maybe she's a bit old for it?

      Delete
  15. If you were doing a documentary about bigfoot DNA and you found some bigfoot DNA. Would you:

    a) Discuss the results on the show ( you know the one about bigfoot)

    Or

    b) do not discuss the bigfoot results only show known animal results and instead put out a show fully discrediting bigfooters while putting forward a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon.

    Joe thinks Sykes found a bigfoot yet went down the b) route.

    Incredible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said. Some people never learn.

      Delete
    2. "Now that the “Bigfoot Files” television series has aired, I can talk more about it. I must first preface my comments by saying there are still things I cannot say because Bryan’s paper is in peer-review and his book is scheduled to come out in the spring.

      We knew the project’s outcome would be conditional on what we received as samples. If you have seen the TV series you saw that 12 samples’ results were revealed. All were known animals, with the exception of some glass fibers sent from Russia. As you can see, a lot of money and effort was wasted on some samples. It must be noted that Bryan generously self-funded this project all on his own, including all of the travel. I can tell you that this has not been cheap and I doubt if he will ever recoup his investment, so those who claim that he is in this for the money don’t know what they are talking about. Neither Bryan, nor Bigfootology, charged anyone for processing, shipping and analyzing the samples for this project.

      The results aired on the television shows do not compromise Bryan’s paper in peer review. The show is purely entertainment and as I said before, we had no control over it. So the concerns of some people who think that results revealed in the show are leaks from the paper are unfounded. We kept things quiet for so long, why would we suddenly “leak” anything? We are a professional organization and adhere to the proper scientific process."

      ... You will get the hang of this... I'm here to help.

      Delete
    3. Hahaha Joe completely missed the point as usual. Poor guy don't even know when he's been pwned.

      Delete
    4. Joe. We have the Morley thread where Sykes and some presenters of proposed biological presenters get into a "heated" exchange where he essentially chides them to submit "better" samples. That was early on last spring. Then the water broke in the fall last year and leaks surfaced that some positive results had led to the study being broken into 3 distinct groupings. Then nada enchilada. Any news since then. There were some big names on that list and they weren't happy campers. M

      Delete
    5. Hey Mike!! I think that the peer review process has put a kid on anything else leaking so that the proper protocol can be respected... That would make perfect sense.

      How are you bro?

      Delete
    6. Dude have you seen this 38 second video on Google Plus that I can't seem to transfer that shows a subject hanging in a tree? Well I just sent a copy of it to Summer, Prahl and Claerr after reverend Jeff and I respectfully disagreed as to whether or not it was as Jeff put it "some sort of rodent". Well. Mickey Mouse was a 6 foot rodent. But he's one of a kind as far as I know. I'm looking for a real input on this. I know you hate Google Plus. But would you and Scott please look at this. Give me your opinion. And then dear God please email it back to me so I can transfer mediums

      Delete
    7. Ok... I'm right on it pal. Sorry I haven't seem it yet, I hate Google Plus!

      Speak soon pal.

      Delete
  16. The only reason I believe there isn't any bigfoot is because there isn't any bigfoot.

    Duh. What's wrong with you?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Cascades Carnivore Project.

    Yes, there is no bigfoot. I don't care what that lunatic Dr. J says.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's compare the Cascade Carnivore Study to the size of the PNW.

      Then, let's compare the number of months that study had gone on for, to that of the evidence accumulation for Sasquatch during the same length of time.

      It's an old argument and there have been trail cams erected all over the country for many years... Bigfoot ain't a wolverine, a wolf, a grizzly, a lynx... It's a type of human that has evaded people and in particular; technology for this long. Why? Because it is a a big pink flag in a see of green... It is an intrusion in a home where they know the slightest bit of detail to stay one step ahead of all other apex predators, and us to survive.

      I wonder if people like Stacy Brown would be concerned about this Carnivore Project? I know Sykes is still looking for samples; so he sure as hell isn't.

      Delete
  18. I have to say this was not a bad debate minus the one line internet trolls.

    I got to thinking and one of these trolls should create a page where all the internet trolls can go and post there one line stupid remarks and wittily insult each other till there little hearts content. It would be troll heaven hahaha " Now go trolls get heeeyaaa get " hahaha

    ReplyDelete
  19. None of the "men in suits" that I've seen have ever produced the instinctual "That's real and it's not human!" reaction I have when I watch the Patterson-Gimlin film.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's right but three months ago Kitakraze was yelling on the street corner that he'd found "the suit" at a pawn shop.

      As usual nothing came of it, the claim fell flat. And yes of course the first place an intelligent person would look for "the suit" connected to one of the most famous films in history would be . . . your local pawn shop, yes!

      Formidable, those jayrefers, ain't they?

      Delete
  20. It's still a crappy quality film. Still fake. Still fooling the stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  21. if dat bigfoot lived in L.A it'd be gettin' lipo

    ReplyDelete
  22. Bloke in a suit Joe. Get the caulk outta yer mouth, boy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Got monkey suit? Oh, and check this out;

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/watch-girl-raised-as-bushman-running.html?m=1

      ... Are you bordering meltdown mode yet?

      Delete
    2. I don't get why you keep bringing up this 'girl raised as bushman' video. The large posterior shown by the native girl therein is only seen for a few seconds at the most and the subject in question does not walk continuously for more than a couple of steps. You don't see typical human butt dimensions or movement in that video but you also don't see the girl walking like Patty does. She jumps up and down and takes a couple of slow, short steps. However even in these short steps you see the butt cheeks moving up and down independently - something that is NOT evident in the P-G film. You also keep bring up the leaping yeti video. Surely nobody but yourself takes this clip seriously? It looks more like a film student project than video of a real animal.

      Delete
    3. Shannon... Yes, the native girl's butt cheeks move, kind of like this?

      http://youtu.be/wQr922oWdgY

      Also, in the Leaping Russian Yeti; consider the subject's motion changes (bipedal and then quadrupedal motion after leaping what appears to be feet in the air), muscle tone, limb length and girth, speed and agility are not within the possibilities of a normal human... And the big butt.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTddczieNdQ

      ... At 1.47mins, you see it pull itself along with it's arms in that terrain after a massive leap into the air. A normal human would break their wrists jumping from bipedal motion to quadrupedal motion at that speed in that awkward terrain.

      Quite a sophisticated hoax by an old Russian guy and his son, isn't it?

      Delete
    4. Also... There are a few of us lookig for the another video that is of the same native girl video source; where she runs a considerable amount of times demonstrating how static her butt can be. Once this is located it'll be posted here.

      The reports of Sasquatch having such large butts is extremely common.

      Also... Important that I communicate that I mean to cause no offense, Shannon, I enjoy the debate and expecially from someone so obviously as well articulated as yourself.

      Peace.

      Delete
  23. I pop into this site gor goodknows what reason every so often

    guaranteed the prick joe Fitzgerald is writing diatribes of shit on every blog

    I note he is treated as a prick my others

    the majority appear to tolerate his self obsessional writings.

    annoying boring nobody. it may help discussions if people were restricted in how many times/how long their comments are

    ps

    ive never believed that this is a reL CREATURE FOR ONE MINUTE. iTS NOTHING BUT A MAN IN A SUIT FOR ME. IVE HEARD ALL THE SHIN RISE/ARM LENGTH/GAIT CANT BE COPIED BY MEN STUFF

    THEN IVE SEEN A DOCUMENTORY WIT THAT BOB HEMEROIDS DUDE[SP] AND HIS GAIT WAS THE EXACT SAME AND HE PASSED A POLYGRAPH

    FOOTERS ARE VERY QUICK TO POINT OUT SMEJA PASSED A POLY SO U CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS

    SORRY 4 CAPS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Roger Patterson passed a polygraph too... There's a reason why they're not used in a court of law.

      Bob H's walk is probably the most obvious rehearsed walk I've ever seen, go look at his contradictions online. Pretty funny stuff.

      Siolen yffarn.

      Delete
  24. Diaper butt!!! Big hairy ass tits too!!!! Got monkey?



    Didn't think so........


    Pwned

    ReplyDelete
  25. http://www.examiner.com/article/sasquatch-genome-dna-study-arizona-sample-is-novel-hominin-hybrid-w-human

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yea there's the scientific proof that will of course be laughed at by these people

      Delete
  26. I very much believe in Bigfoot, and have always believed this footage to be real; however, with this stabilization I don't like the dark line above the buttocks. The hair line doesn't look natural to me. I understand hair lines like that exist on animals, but that area in my opinion would not be one of them.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Joe, Patty is real. Bigfooters come in two categories. Honest and decent people and assholes who havecself esteem issues. Some of these shits in these groups walk around as if they are really something relavant and imoortant. It's a wonder they're not dressed in military uniforms with medaks pinned on. For crying fucking out loud.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I hardly ever comment on here for that exact reason. The chance of having a serious discussion is zero to none. This site is dedicated to Bigfoot news, if you are in the percentage of those who do not believe in such a thing, why spend your time here? There have to be other places you can go and talk about your opinions. Joe, you do a great job fighting the fight for us who know Sasquatch/Bigfoot exist, but honestly these commenters aren't worth it. They are simply not worth the time and effort. The individuals who say it doesn't exist have probably never had the pleasure of going into the woods and coming to their own conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Totally moves and looks like a human

    ReplyDelete
  30. I cant say if its real or not, like ive said before, that film is just to bad! I will askthis though, where is the butt crack? Even apes at the zoo show us some butt crack.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Looks like the stride and gait of a man in a gorilla suit.

    ReplyDelete
  32. It looks like there is a baby clinging to the back of the enhanced Patterson video! Look closely when she is walking away. Otherwise, the bump on her back is a backpack! A mother bigfoot must have a baby close by somewhere, why not on her back?

    ReplyDelete