Oh, Wow! You Can Totally See Patty's Toes In This Enhancement
M.K. Davis as done it again! All these years of enhancing and deburring each frame from the Patterson-Gimlin footage has yielded something so definitive that it's mind blowing. Skeptics claim Patty was a man in a suit, but we all know that there was no such suit back 1967. Also, look at Patty's foot -- and her toes! Ladies and gentlemen, to create something like a foot complete with toes, to go with a suit (if it was a suit), Roger Patterson would have to be light years ahead of his time. Davis explains the enhancement:
This is from frame 61 of the Patterson Bigfoot film. The image on the left has been deblurred and filtered for maximum contrast. The toes are quite visible. - M.K. Davis
 |
| Patty's toes are clearly visible here |
first amigos !
ReplyDeleteHi ..I`m the JoeBoy and the BIGGEST TROLL on the whole SITE.
DeleteOh YEAH ...I`m going to be here for a VERY VERY LONG TIME.
Bigfoot or Monkey Suits and Fake Feet?
In the last section, we saw that many believers propose that the sasquatch is a giant primate, descended from the prehistoric gigantopithecus. Skeptics recognize that such a creature could exist, but hold that it is highly unlikely the creature could have lived close to inhabited areas for hundreds of years without anyone gathering conclusive evidence. The more likely explanation, according to the debunkers, is that several independent hoaxers have built up a collection of false evidence that has duped a very large number of people.
One of the most common types of sasquatch evidence is casts of giant footprints. Skeptics point out that this evidence is fairly simple to fake.
To make "bigfoot" prints, a prankster would just mold two large feet out of plaster, attach them to the bottom of his shoes and walk with a very long stride (possibly leaping with each step). The size and shape of supposed sasquatch footprints do vary considerably, which may indicate a number of unrelated pranksters. Sasquatch sounds could also be faked fairly easily, critics say, possibly using a computer program that alters sounds from an animal or human so the noise sounds completely alien.
As for photographic evidence (which is relatively rare), skeptics suggest that the documented sasquatches are actually people dressed in ape suits. Sasquatch-believers recognize that many photos and films are hoaxes, but they say that a few of them would be very hard to fake. The most famous piece of sasquatch evidence, the 1967 film shot by Roger Patterson in Bluff Creek, Cali., is at the heart of this debate. Several Hollywood insiders, including "An American Werewolf in London" director John Landis, have claimed that the film shows a man dressed in an ape suit. According to Landis, the suit was designed by John Chambers, the special-effects master who created the costumes for the original "Planet of the Apes" movies. Chambers denies any involvement, but the rumor persists.
Sasquatch believers say there are several details in the footage that indicate the creature is not a person. The main evidence is that the figure in the film keeps its knees bent while it is walking (see The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization for pictures from the film). When humans walk, they lock their knees with each step, holding their legs straight. Believers also point out that the figure's skin and fur has a rippling motion, like a living creature's moving flesh, and that the surface of a costume would not move this way. Skeptics counter that the rippling-skin effect can be achieved by attaching a "water-bag" under the suit. According to E! Online: Bigfoot Movie: A Hollywood Hoax?, several Hollywood effects artists say the figure is obviously a guy in an ape suit with a water-bag fastened to his stomach.
But what about all the reported sightings? Believers make the point that people from all age groups, socioeconomic backgrounds and education levels say they've seen the creatures, indicating that the sightings are not an isolated phenomenon limited to a few pranksters and kooks. Skeptics counter that while these people aren't necessarily lying about what they've seen, they may be mistaken. A bear in the wild will stand up on its hind legs, possibly giving the impression of a tall primate. Impressions are highly subjective, skeptics note, and may be skewed when a person
Hi ..I`m the JoeBoy and the BIGGEST TROLL on the whole SITE.
DeleteOh YEAH ...I`m going to be here for a VERY VERY LONG TIME.
Bigfoot or Monkey Suits and Fake Feet?
In the last section, we saw that many believers propose that the sasquatch is a giant primate, descended from the prehistoric gigantopithecus. Skeptics recognize that such a creature could exist, but hold that it is highly unlikely the creature could have lived close to inhabited areas for hundreds of years without anyone gathering conclusive evidence. The more likely explanation, according to the debunkers, is that several independent hoaxers have built up a collection of false evidence that has duped a very large number of people.
One of the most common types of sasquatch evidence is casts of giant footprints. Skeptics point out that this evidence is fairly simple to fake.
To make "bigfoot" prints, a prankster would just mold two large feet out of plaster, attach them to the bottom of his shoes and walk with a very long stride (possibly leaping with each step). The size and shape of supposed sasquatch footprints do vary considerably, which may indicate a number of unrelated pranksters. Sasquatch sounds could also be faked fairly easily, critics say, possibly using a computer program that alters sounds from an animal or human so the noise sounds completely alien.
As for photographic evidence (which is relatively rare), skeptics suggest that the documented sasquatches are actually people dressed in ape suits. Sasquatch-believers recognize that many photos and films are hoaxes, but they say that a few of them would be very hard to fake. The most famous piece of sasquatch evidence, the 1967 film shot by Roger Patterson in Bluff Creek, Cali., is at the heart of this debate. Several Hollywood insiders, including "An American Werewolf in London" director John Landis, have claimed that the film shows a man dressed in an ape suit. According to Landis, the suit was designed by John Chambers, the special-effects master who created the costumes for the original "Planet of the Apes" movies. Chambers denies any involvement, but the rumor persists.
Sasquatch believers say there are several details in the footage that indicate the creature is not a person. The main evidence is that the figure in the film keeps its knees bent while it is walking (see The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization for pictures from the film). When humans walk, they lock their knees with each step, holding their legs straight. Believers also point out that the figure's skin and fur has a rippling motion, like a living creature's moving flesh, and that the surface of a costume would not move this way. Skeptics counter that the rippling-skin effect can be achieved by attaching a "water-bag" under the suit. According to E! Online: Bigfoot Movie: A Hollywood Hoax?, several Hollywood effects artists say the figure is obviously a guy in an ape suit with a water-bag fastened to his stomach.
But what about all the reported sightings? Believers make the point that people from all age groups, socioeconomic backgrounds and education levels say they've seen the creatures, indicating that the sightings are not an isolated phenomenon limited to a few pranksters and kooks. Skeptics counter that while these people aren't necessarily lying about what they've seen, they may be mistaken. A bear in the wild will stand up on its hind legs, possibly giving the impression of a tall primate. Impressions are highly subjective, skeptics note, and may be skewed when a person
Hi ..I`m the JoeBoy and the BIGGEST TROLL on the whole SITE.
DeleteOh YEAH ...I`m going to be here for a VERY VERY LONG TIME.
Bigfoot or Monkey Suits and Fake Feet?
In the last section, we saw that many believers propose that the sasquatch is a giant primate, descended from the prehistoric gigantopithecus. Skeptics recognize that such a creature could exist, but hold that it is highly unlikely the creature could have lived close to inhabited areas for hundreds of years without anyone gathering conclusive evidence. The more likely explanation, according to the debunkers, is that several independent hoaxers have built up a collection of false evidence that has duped a very large number of people.
One of the most common types of sasquatch evidence is casts of giant footprints. Skeptics point out that this evidence is fairly simple to fake.
To make "bigfoot" prints, a prankster would just mold two large feet out of plaster, attach them to the bottom of his shoes and walk with a very long stride (possibly leaping with each step). The size and shape of supposed sasquatch footprints do vary considerably, which may indicate a number of unrelated pranksters. Sasquatch sounds could also be faked fairly easily, critics say, possibly using a computer program that alters sounds from an animal or human so the noise sounds completely alien.
As for photographic evidence (which is relatively rare), skeptics suggest that the documented sasquatches are actually people dressed in ape suits. Sasquatch-believers recognize that many photos and films are hoaxes, but they say that a few of them would be very hard to fake. The most famous piece of sasquatch evidence, the 1967 film shot by Roger Patterson in Bluff Creek, Cali., is at the heart of this debate. Several Hollywood insiders, including "An American Werewolf in London" director John Landis, have claimed that the film shows a man dressed in an ape suit. According to Landis, the suit was designed by John Chambers, the special-effects master who created the costumes for the original "Planet of the Apes" movies. Chambers denies any involvement, but the rumor persists.
Sasquatch believers say there are several details in the footage that indicate the creature is not a person. The main evidence is that the figure in the film keeps its knees bent while it is walking (see The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization for pictures from the film). When humans walk, they lock their knees with each step, holding their legs straight. Believers also point out that the figure's skin and fur has a rippling motion, like a living creature's moving flesh, and that the surface of a costume would not move this way. Skeptics counter that the rippling-skin effect can be achieved by attaching a "water-bag" under the suit. According to E! Online: Bigfoot Movie: A Hollywood Hoax?, several Hollywood effects artists say the figure is obviously a guy in an ape suit with a water-bag fastened to his stomach.
But what about all the reported sightings? Believers make the point that people from all age groups, socioeconomic backgrounds and education levels say they've seen the creatures, indicating that the sightings are not an isolated phenomenon limited to a few pranksters and kooks. Skeptics counter that while these people aren't necessarily lying about what they've seen, they may be mistaken. A bear in the wild will stand up on its hind legs, possibly giving the impression of a tall primate. Impressions are highly subjective, skeptics note, and may be skewed when a person
Hi ..I`m the JoeBoy and the BIGGEST TROLL on the whole SITE.
DeleteOh YEAH ...I`m going to be here for a VERY VERY LONG TIME.
Bigfoot or Monkey Suits and Fake Feet?
In the last section, we saw that many believers propose that the sasquatch is a giant primate, descended from the prehistoric gigantopithecus. Skeptics recognize that such a creature could exist, but hold that it is highly unlikely the creature could have lived close to inhabited areas for hundreds of years without anyone gathering conclusive evidence. The more likely explanation, according to the debunkers, is that several independent hoaxers have built up a collection of false evidence that has duped a very large number of people.
One of the most common types of sasquatch evidence is casts of giant footprints. Skeptics point out that this evidence is fairly simple to fake.
To make "bigfoot" prints, a prankster would just mold two large feet out of plaster, attach them to the bottom of his shoes and walk with a very long stride (possibly leaping with each step). The size and shape of supposed sasquatch footprints do vary considerably, which may indicate a number of unrelated pranksters. Sasquatch sounds could also be faked fairly easily, critics say, possibly using a computer program that alters sounds from an animal or human so the noise sounds completely alien.
As for photographic evidence (which is relatively rare), skeptics suggest that the documented sasquatches are actually people dressed in ape suits. Sasquatch-believers recognize that many photos and films are hoaxes, but they say that a few of them would be very hard to fake. The most famous piece of sasquatch evidence, the 1967 film shot by Roger Patterson in Bluff Creek, Cali., is at the heart of this debate. Several Hollywood insiders, including "An American Werewolf in London" director John Landis, have claimed that the film shows a man dressed in an ape suit. According to Landis, the suit was designed by John Chambers, the special-effects master who created the costumes for the original "Planet of the Apes" movies. Chambers denies any involvement, but the rumor persists.
Sasquatch believers say there are several details in the footage that indicate the creature is not a person. The main evidence is that the figure in the film keeps its knees bent while it is walking (see The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization for pictures from the film). When humans walk, they lock their knees with each step, holding their legs straight. Believers also point out that the figure's skin and fur has a rippling motion, like a living creature's moving flesh, and that the surface of a costume would not move this way. Skeptics counter that the rippling-skin effect can be achieved by attaching a "water-bag" under the suit. According to E! Online: Bigfoot Movie: A Hollywood Hoax?, several Hollywood effects artists say the figure is obviously a guy in an ape suit with a water-bag fastened to his stomach.
But what about all the reported sightings? Believers make the point that people from all age groups, socioeconomic backgrounds and education levels say they've seen the creatures, indicating that the sightings are not an isolated phenomenon limited to a few pranksters and kooks. Skeptics counter that while these people aren't necessarily lying about what they've seen, they may be mistaken. A bear in the wild will stand up on its hind legs, possibly giving the impression of a tall primate. Impressions are highly subjective, skeptics note, and may be skewed when a person
Hi ..I`m the JoeBoy and the BIGGEST TROLL on the whole SITE.
DeleteOh YEAH ...I`m going to be here for a VERY VERY LONG TIME.
Bigfoot or Monkey Suits and Fake Feet?
In the last section, we saw that many believers propose that the sasquatch is a giant primate, descended from the prehistoric gigantopithecus. Skeptics recognize that such a creature could exist, but hold that it is highly unlikely the creature could have lived close to inhabited areas for hundreds of years without anyone gathering conclusive evidence. The more likely explanation, according to the debunkers, is that several independent hoaxers have built up a collection of false evidence that has duped a very large number of people.
One of the most common types of sasquatch evidence is casts of giant footprints. Skeptics point out that this evidence is fairly simple to fake.
To make "bigfoot" prints, a prankster would just mold two large feet out of plaster, attach them to the bottom of his shoes and walk with a very long stride (possibly leaping with each step). The size and shape of supposed sasquatch footprints do vary considerably, which may indicate a number of unrelated pranksters. Sasquatch sounds could also be faked fairly easily, critics say, possibly using a computer program that alters sounds from an animal or human so the noise sounds completely alien.
As for photographic evidence (which is relatively rare), skeptics suggest that the documented sasquatches are actually people dressed in ape suits. Sasquatch-believers recognize that many photos and films are hoaxes, but they say that a few of them would be very hard to fake. The most famous piece of sasquatch evidence, the 1967 film shot by Roger Patterson in Bluff Creek, Cali., is at the heart of this debate. Several Hollywood insiders, including "An American Werewolf in London" director John Landis, have claimed that the film shows a man dressed in an ape suit. According to Landis, the suit was designed by John Chambers, the special-effects master who created the costumes for the original "Planet of the Apes" movies. Chambers denies any involvement, but the rumor persists.
Sasquatch believers say there are several details in the footage that indicate the creature is not a person. The main evidence is that the figure in the film keeps its knees bent while it is walking (see The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization for pictures from the film). When humans walk, they lock their knees with each step, holding their legs straight. Believers also point out that the figure's skin and fur has a rippling motion, like a living creature's moving flesh, and that the surface of a costume would not move this way. Skeptics counter that the rippling-skin effect can be achieved by attaching a "water-bag" under the suit. According to E! Online: Bigfoot Movie: A Hollywood Hoax?, several Hollywood effects artists say the figure is obviously a guy in an ape suit with a water-bag fastened to his stomach.
But what about all the reported sightings? Believers make the point that people from all age groups, socioeconomic backgrounds and education levels say they've seen the creatures, indicating that the sightings are not an isolated phenomenon limited to a few pranksters and kooks. Skeptics counter that while these people aren't necessarily lying about what they've seen, they may be mistaken. A bear in the wild will stand up on its hind legs, possibly giving the impression of a tall primate. Impressions are highly subjective, skeptics note, and may be skewed when a person
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
DeleteSHURE AM
Hi ..I`m the JoeBoy and the BIGGEST TROLL on the whole SITE.
DeleteOh YEAH ...I`m going to be here for a VERY VERY LONG TIME.
Bigfoot or Monkey Suits and Fake Feet?
In the last section, we saw that many believers propose that the sasquatch is a giant primate, descended from the prehistoric gigantopithecus. Skeptics recognize that such a creature could exist, but hold that it is highly unlikely the creature could have lived close to inhabited areas for hundreds of years without anyone gathering conclusive evidence. The more likely explanation, according to the debunkers, is that several independent hoaxers have built up a collection of false evidence that has duped a very large number of people.
One of the most common types of sasquatch evidence is casts of giant footprints. Skeptics point out that this evidence is fairly simple to fake.
To make "bigfoot" prints, a prankster would just mold two large feet out of plaster, attach them to the bottom of his shoes and walk with a very long stride (possibly leaping with each step). The size and shape of supposed sasquatch footprints do vary considerably, which may indicate a number of unrelated pranksters. Sasquatch sounds could also be faked fairly easily, critics say, possibly using a computer program that alters sounds from an animal or human so the noise sounds completely alien.
As for photographic evidence (which is relatively rare), skeptics suggest that the documented sasquatches are actually people dressed in ape suits. Sasquatch-believers recognize that many photos and films are hoaxes, but they say that a few of them would be very hard to fake. The most famous piece of sasquatch evidence, the 1967 film shot by Roger Patterson in Bluff Creek, Cali., is at the heart of this debate. Several Hollywood insiders, including "An American Werewolf in London" director John Landis, have claimed that the film shows a man dressed in an ape suit. According to Landis, the suit was designed by John Chambers, the special-effects master who created the costumes for the original "Planet of the Apes" movies. Chambers denies any involvement, but the rumor persists.
Sasquatch believers say there are several details in the footage that indicate the creature is not a person. The main evidence is that the figure in the film keeps its knees bent while it is walking (see The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization for pictures from the film). When humans walk, they lock their knees with each step, holding their legs straight. Believers also point out that the figure's skin and fur has a rippling motion, like a living creature's moving flesh, and that the surface of a costume would not move this way. Skeptics counter that the rippling-skin effect can be achieved by attaching a "water-bag" under the suit. According to E! Online: Bigfoot Movie: A Hollywood Hoax?, several Hollywood effects artists say the figure is obviously a guy in an ape suit with a water-bag fastened to his stomach.
But what about all the reported sightings? Believers make the point that people from all age groups, socioeconomic backgrounds and education levels say they've seen the creatures, indicating that the sightings are not an isolated phenomenon limited to a few pranksters and kooks. Skeptics counter that while these people aren't necessarily lying about what they've seen, they may be mistaken. A bear in the wild will stand up on its hind legs, possibly giving the impression of a tall primate. Impressions are highly subjective, skeptics note, and may be skewed when a person
DeleteAm here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
DeleteAm here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
SHURE AM
DeleteAm here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
SHURE AM
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
DeleteSHURE AM
"The more likely explanation, according to the debunkers, is that several independent hoaxers have built up a collection of false evidence that has duped a very large number of people."
DeleteExcept when you see/hear it for yourself...then you really aren't duped by anyone are you?
I experienced a terrfying encounter with a very large bipedal creature, close enough to know it wasn't a bear and there was absolutely no reason for a man in a monkey suit to be that deep in the woods. Troll all you want, I understand your skepticism... but I know what I saw.
DeleteHey JTB, you sure are a scum-sucking douche-bag, aren't'cha? :)
DeleteThe gigantic repeated troll post is incomplete, and also conveniently avoids the subject and fact of dermal ridges within some of the tracks.
DeleteSmoked like a sardine, baby.
I admit this is persuasive. No ape suit had such appendages. Five individual toes I count there.
DeletePersuasive, indeed.
Too much reading
Deletethis could be groundbreaking if true
ReplyDeleteit will mean that it's more sure the real deal than a fake
But I always thought it was the real deal all along
The more technology we throw at it the more convincing it looks.
DeleteNo wonder the skeptics among us prefer to concentrate on the characters involved rather than the footage itself.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming 'got monkey suit' just doesn't cut it I'm afraid.
MMG
"Carl Olinsolet recently posted this intriguing enhancement video on Facebook. The video shows the lower legs and feet of the subject of the Patterson-Gimlin Film, and focuses on the toes of this animal. A feature, which I have noticed, is that the toes lift excessively, possibly due to limitation in dorsiflexion of the ankle joint. Here is Mr. Olinoslet's video, which does a nice job of pointing out this feature in the animal's foot
Deletehttp://bizarrezoology.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/compelling-evidence-toe-extension-of.html
The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary defines dorsiflexion as "the turning of the foot or the toes upward". As physical therapist Kevin Cooney has explained to me, ankle dorsiflexion is one of the actions required to clear the foot during swing phase of gait, as well as setting up heel strike for initial contact with the ground.
This animal appears to exhibit greater toe extension during the swing phase of gait than those of Homo sapiens. Physical therapist Kevin M. Cooney, who specializes in gait at a biomechanics lab, has pointed out to me that humans who have limited ankle dorsiflexion due to calf muscle tightness often compensate for this limitation using increased toe extension to maximize swing foot clearance so they don't trip. When comparing the Patterson-Gimlin film to the actor in the suit (see diagram below), it appears the animal has more of a "foot flat" contact onto the ground with toes hyper-extended, whereas the person in the suit has exaggerated ankle dorsiflexion and a heel strike at contact.If the Patterson Film subject was a person in a suit, then it would have had ankle dorsiflexion rather than the abnormal toe hyper-extension in the film (as demonstrated by the diagram below). It would have been very difficult to replicate this toe hyper-extension in the large "clown shoes" which must have been worn if this was a costume, as the subject's feet were measured between 14 and 15 inches long. If it were a person in a suit, they would have had to exaggerate dorsiflexion at the ankle to raise what would likely have been synthetic material to make the foot this long, as is well demonstrated in the actual man-in-the-suit trial in the diagram. In addition, achieving this degree of toe hyper-extension would be very difficult in Homo sapiens."
Damn Joe, give someone else a chance! :-)
DeleteHey Ragin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Deleteback at ya! I have been away for far too long.
DeleteWell don't stay away too long again bro!!
DeleteA skeptard will scream, "But what about the impossible timeline?!"
DeleteWOOOOO TOES IN A SUIT?!
DeleteUNTHINKABLE!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQlPAFV6yaI
Delete09-19-14
Never forget!!!
2:22... Got extending toes suit feature in 1967?
Delete2:38... I would try if I were you;
http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/this-is-saddest-video-of-week.html?m=0
Got monkey suit?
Got monkey? No?
DeleteSeems you lode again
Lode? Great stuff bro...
DeleteYeah, if you cannot test the source up top, then the default position, in line with all the physical and biological evidence, in line with the experts' endorsement... Is that it's a living, breathing, organic biped.
Got monkey suit?
Uhuh the grammar queen? You? The most analphabetical guy around here? My girlfriend is italian and herc italian phone does autocorrections accordingly.
DeleteYour girfliend instead is an imaginary hairy man. Loooser!
Haha @ mmg and Joe.
DeleteThat diaper butt and my monkey suit video aunt going anywhere. Its like footers ignore these things and concentrate on the delusion.
3:34... herc? You're losing it bro????
Delete3:36...
http://youtu.be/wQr922oWdgY
Also... It might be news to you, but the big ass on a Sasquatch is a very commonly reported. You'll find the same anatomical feature on the Leaping Russian Yeti who is very, very athletic in it's motion.
Oh... And as for your monkey suit video, you've got CGI, foam suits that weren't available in the 60's, Gemora suit that's only ever shown in low lighting to hide suit anomalies and a bunny rabbit suit lacking proportions made my a guy who states the PGF probably isn't a man in a suit.
It's like skepfooters ignore these things and concentrate on the delusion.
Note how joe uses the word reported rather than say point to actual specimen or something worthwhile.
DeleteI'M A BELIEVER,SOUNDS LIKE A SONG I HEARD YEARS AGO. ANYWAY,NO ONE CAN PROVE THE PATTERSON TAPE IS FAKE. IN FACT THE DIGITAL ENHANCEMENT IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE FOR ME. THE ANIMAL IS REALLLLL
DeleteZero bigfoots anywhere ever.
DeleteIts like footards ignore these things and concentrate on the delusion.
Noone can prove it's fake. That doesn't mean it's real. Footers can do one thing about that though. They can find the actual creature that it is. And what's great is they only need the one:)
Delete"No wonder the skeptics among us prefer to concentrate on the characters involved rather than the footage itself."
DeleteWhat about Rick Dyer's tent video? That footage was dismissed on account of "the characters involved".
When there is no way to 100% verify the authenticity of a piece of footage (e.g. dna to back up said footage) you have to rely on the credibility of those presenting it.
Hi ..I`m the JoeBoy and the BIGGEST TROLL on the whole SITE.
DeleteOh YEAH ...I`m going to be here for a VERY VERY LONG TIME.
Bigfoot or Monkey Suits and Fake Feet?
In the last section, we saw that many believers propose that the sasquatch is a giant primate, descended from the prehistoric gigantopithecus. Skeptics recognize that such a creature could exist, but hold that it is highly unlikely the creature could have lived close to inhabited areas for hundreds of years without anyone gathering conclusive evidence. The more likely explanation, according to the debunkers, is that several independent hoaxers have built up a collection of false evidence that has duped a very large number of people.
One of the most common types of sasquatch evidence is casts of giant footprints. Skeptics point out that this evidence is fairly simple to fake.
To make "bigfoot" prints, a prankster would just mold two large feet out of plaster, attach them to the bottom of his shoes and walk with a very long stride (possibly leaping with each step). The size and shape of supposed sasquatch footprints do vary considerably, which may indicate a number of unrelated pranksters. Sasquatch sounds could also be faked fairly easily, critics say, possibly using a computer program that alters sounds from an animal or human so the noise sounds completely alien.
As for photographic evidence (which is relatively rare), skeptics suggest that the documented sasquatches are actually people dressed in ape suits. Sasquatch-believers recognize that many photos and films are hoaxes, but they say that a few of them would be very hard to fake. The most famous piece of sasquatch evidence, the 1967 film shot by Roger Patterson in Bluff Creek, Cali., is at the heart of this debate. Several Hollywood insiders, including "An American Werewolf in London" director John Landis, have claimed that the film shows a man dressed in an ape suit. According to Landis, the suit was designed by John Chambers, the special-effects master who created the costumes for the original "Planet of the Apes" movies. Chambers denies any involvement, but the rumor persists.
Sasquatch believers say there are several details in the footage that indicate the creature is not a person. The main evidence is that the figure in the film keeps its knees bent while it is walking (see The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization for pictures from the film). When humans walk, they lock their knees with each step, holding their legs straight. Believers also point out that the figure's skin and fur has a rippling motion, like a living creature's moving flesh, and that the surface of a costume would not move this way. Skeptics counter that the rippling-skin effect can be achieved by attaching a "water-bag" under the suit. According to E! Online: Bigfoot Movie: A Hollywood Hoax?, several Hollywood effects artists say the figure is obviously a guy in an ape suit with a water-bag fastened to his stomach.
But what about all the reported sightings? Believers make the point that people from all age groups, socioeconomic backgrounds and education levels say they've seen the creatures, indicating that the sightings are not an isolated phenomenon limited to a few pranksters and kooks. Skeptics counter that while these people aren't necessarily lying about what they've seen, they may be mistaken. A bear in the wild will stand up on its hind legs, possibly giving the impression of a tall primate. Impressions are highly subjective, skeptics note, and may be skewed when a person
Hi ..I`m the JoeBoy and the BIGGEST TROLL on the whole SITE.
DeleteOh YEAH ...I`m going to be here for a VERY VERY LONG TIME.
Bigfoot or Monkey Suits and Fake Feet?
In the last section, we saw that many believers propose that the sasquatch is a giant primate, descended from the prehistoric gigantopithecus. Skeptics recognize that such a creature could exist, but hold that it is highly unlikely the creature could have lived close to inhabited areas for hundreds of years without anyone gathering conclusive evidence. The more likely explanation, according to the debunkers, is that several independent hoaxers have built up a collection of false evidence that has duped a very large number of people.
One of the most common types of sasquatch evidence is casts of giant footprints. Skeptics point out that this evidence is fairly simple to fake.
To make "bigfoot" prints, a prankster would just mold two large feet out of plaster, attach them to the bottom of his shoes and walk with a very long stride (possibly leaping with each step). The size and shape of supposed sasquatch footprints do vary considerably, which may indicate a number of unrelated pranksters. Sasquatch sounds could also be faked fairly easily, critics say, possibly using a computer program that alters sounds from an animal or human so the noise sounds completely alien.
As for photographic evidence (which is relatively rare), skeptics suggest that the documented sasquatches are actually people dressed in ape suits. Sasquatch-believers recognize that many photos and films are hoaxes, but they say that a few of them would be very hard to fake. The most famous piece of sasquatch evidence, the 1967 film shot by Roger Patterson in Bluff Creek, Cali., is at the heart of this debate. Several Hollywood insiders, including "An American Werewolf in London" director John Landis, have claimed that the film shows a man dressed in an ape suit. According to Landis, the suit was designed by John Chambers, the special-effects master who created the costumes for the original "Planet of the Apes" movies. Chambers denies any involvement, but the rumor persists.
Sasquatch believers say there are several details in the footage that indicate the creature is not a person. The main evidence is that the figure in the film keeps its knees bent while it is walking (see The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization for pictures from the film). When humans walk, they lock their knees with each step, holding their legs straight. Believers also point out that the figure's skin and fur has a rippling motion, like a living creature's moving flesh, and that the surface of a costume would not move this way. Skeptics counter that the rippling-skin effect can be achieved by attaching a "water-bag" under the suit. According to E! Online: Bigfoot Movie: A Hollywood Hoax?, several Hollywood effects artists say the figure is obviously a guy in an ape suit with a water-bag fastened to his stomach.
But what about all the reported sightings? Believers make the point that people from all age groups, socioeconomic backgrounds and education levels say they've seen the creatures, indicating that the sightings are not an isolated phenomenon limited to a few pranksters and kooks. Skeptics counter that while these people aren't necessarily lying about what they've seen, they may be mistaken. A bear in the wild will stand up on its hind legs, possibly giving the impression of a tall primate. Impressions are highly subjective, skeptics note, and may be skewed when a person
Hi ..I`m the JoeBoy and the BIGGEST TROLL on the whole SITE.
DeleteOh YEAH ...I`m going to be here for a VERY VERY LONG TIME.
Bigfoot or Monkey Suits and Fake Feet?
In the last section, we saw that many believers propose that the sasquatch is a giant primate, descended from the prehistoric gigantopithecus. Skeptics recognize that such a creature could exist, but hold that it is highly unlikely the creature could have lived close to inhabited areas for hundreds of years without anyone gathering conclusive evidence. The more likely explanation, according to the debunkers, is that several independent hoaxers have built up a collection of false evidence that has duped a very large number of people.
One of the most common types of sasquatch evidence is casts of giant footprints. Skeptics point out that this evidence is fairly simple to fake.
To make "bigfoot" prints, a prankster would just mold two large feet out of plaster, attach them to the bottom of his shoes and walk with a very long stride (possibly leaping with each step). The size and shape of supposed sasquatch footprints do vary considerably, which may indicate a number of unrelated pranksters. Sasquatch sounds could also be faked fairly easily, critics say, possibly using a computer program that alters sounds from an animal or human so the noise sounds completely alien.
As for photographic evidence (which is relatively rare), skeptics suggest that the documented sasquatches are actually people dressed in ape suits. Sasquatch-believers recognize that many photos and films are hoaxes, but they say that a few of them would be very hard to fake. The most famous piece of sasquatch evidence, the 1967 film shot by Roger Patterson in Bluff Creek, Cali., is at the heart of this debate. Several Hollywood insiders, including "An American Werewolf in London" director John Landis, have claimed that the film shows a man dressed in an ape suit. According to Landis, the suit was designed by John Chambers, the special-effects master who created the costumes for the original "Planet of the Apes" movies. Chambers denies any involvement, but the rumor persists.
Sasquatch believers say there are several details in the footage that indicate the creature is not a person. The main evidence is that the figure in the film keeps its knees bent while it is walking (see The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization for pictures from the film). When humans walk, they lock their knees with each step, holding their legs straight. Believers also point out that the figure's skin and fur has a rippling motion, like a living creature's moving flesh, and that the surface of a costume would not move this way. Skeptics counter that the rippling-skin effect can be achieved by attaching a "water-bag" under the suit. According to E! Online: Bigfoot Movie: A Hollywood Hoax?, several Hollywood effects artists say the figure is obviously a guy in an ape suit with a water-bag fastened to his stomach.
But what about all the reported sightings? Believers make the point that people from all age groups, socioeconomic backgrounds and education levels say they've seen the creatures, indicating that the sightings are not an isolated phenomenon limited to a few pranksters and kooks. Skeptics counter that while these people aren't necessarily lying about what they've seen, they may be mistaken. A bear in the wild will stand up on its hind legs, possibly giving the impression of a tall primate. Impressions are highly subjective, skeptics note, and may be skewed when a person
when a person what??????
Deletecome on paste the rest!!!!!!!
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
DeleteSHURE AMAm here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
SHURE AMAm here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
SHURE AM
4:04... Note how he eludes to the fact that I have referenced you innumerable times of instances where giant skeletal human remains have been documented.
Delete4:05... Plenty found;
http://youtu.be/cR2cREt95sU
http://youtu.be/luue2Mv_VNM
http://youtu.be/lOxuRIfFs0w
... None caught.
4:08... And where do those claims about Roger come from? Greg Long; he's been caught out falsifying interviews that were published in his book. The 'costume expert' that 'made the suit' has no record of Roger buying anything from him and had to hire a costume expert to make a gorilla suit that looked nothing like Patty. Bob H has more contradictions about the suit he wore than anything I've heard and can't even find the 'film site'. You see... There's money in hoaxing a hoax, expecially when your target audience are largely skeptical of the subject already. Author David Murphy had spent 11 years writing the biography of Roger Patterson. In this time he interviewed over 70 people who had some acquaintance with Roger and Bob or people who knew them extremely well, and in that time he came across not one person who didn’t think highly of both individuals, not to mention endorse their credible nature. This is in direct contrast to Greg ‘Liar’ Long who’s book was an attempt at making money from hoaxing a hoax.
I would like to see if someone else could get the same result independently.
ReplyDeleteThey would not likely have as clean a copy of the PG film. MK got his from the widow Patterson.
DeleteHow dare you.
DeleteHi ..I`m the JoeBoy and the BIGGEST TROLL on the whole SITE.
DeleteOh YEAH ...I`m going to be here for a VERY VERY LONG TIME.
Bigfoot or Monkey Suits and Fake Feet?
In the last section, we saw that many believers propose that the sasquatch is a giant primate, descended from the prehistoric gigantopithecus. Skeptics recognize that such a creature could exist, but hold that it is highly unlikely the creature could have lived close to inhabited areas for hundreds of years without anyone gathering conclusive evidence. The more likely explanation, according to the debunkers, is that several independent hoaxers have built up a collection of false evidence that has duped a very large number of people.
One of the most common types of sasquatch evidence is casts of giant footprints. Skeptics point out that this evidence is fairly simple to fake.
To make "bigfoot" prints, a prankster would just mold two large feet out of plaster, attach them to the bottom of his shoes and walk with a very long stride (possibly leaping with each step). The size and shape of supposed sasquatch footprints do vary considerably, which may indicate a number of unrelated pranksters. Sasquatch sounds could also be faked fairly easily, critics say, possibly using a computer program that alters sounds from an animal or human so the noise sounds completely alien.
As for photographic evidence (which is relatively rare), skeptics suggest that the documented sasquatches are actually people dressed in ape suits. Sasquatch-believers recognize that many photos and films are hoaxes, but they say that a few of them would be very hard to fake. The most famous piece of sasquatch evidence, the 1967 film shot by Roger Patterson in Bluff Creek, Cali., is at the heart of this debate. Several Hollywood insiders, including "An American Werewolf in London" director John Landis, have claimed that the film shows a man dressed in an ape suit. According to Landis, the suit was designed by John Chambers, the special-effects master who created the costumes for the original "Planet of the Apes" movies. Chambers denies any involvement, but the rumor persists.
Sasquatch believers say there are several details in the footage that indicate the creature is not a person. The main evidence is that the figure in the film keeps its knees bent while it is walking (see The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization for pictures from the film). When humans walk, they lock their knees with each step, holding their legs straight. Believers also point out that the figure's skin and fur has a rippling motion, like a living creature's moving flesh, and that the surface of a costume would not move this way. Skeptics counter that the rippling-skin effect can be achieved by attaching a "water-bag" under the suit. According to E! Online: Bigfoot Movie: A Hollywood Hoax?, several Hollywood effects artists say the figure is obviously a guy in an ape suit with a water-bag fastened to his stomach.
But what about all the reported sightings? Believers make the point that people from all age groups, socioeconomic backgrounds and education levels say they've seen the creatures, indicating that the sightings are not an isolated phenomenon limited to a few pranksters and kooks. Skeptics counter that while these people aren't necessarily lying about what they've seen, they may be mistaken. A bear in the wild will stand up on its hind legs, possibly giving the impression of a tall primate. Impressions are highly subjective, skeptics note, and may be skewed when a person
Hi ..I`m the JoeBoy and the BIGGEST TROLL on the whole SITE.
DeleteOh YEAH ...I`m going to be here for a VERY VERY LONG TIME.
Bigfoot or Monkey Suits and Fake Feet?
In the last section, we saw that many believers propose that the sasquatch is a giant primate, descended from the prehistoric gigantopithecus. Skeptics recognize that such a creature could exist, but hold that it is highly unlikely the creature could have lived close to inhabited areas for hundreds of years without anyone gathering conclusive evidence. The more likely explanation, according to the debunkers, is that several independent hoaxers have built up a collection of false evidence that has duped a very large number of people.
One of the most common types of sasquatch evidence is casts of giant footprints. Skeptics point out that this evidence is fairly simple to fake.
To make "bigfoot" prints, a prankster would just mold two large feet out of plaster, attach them to the bottom of his shoes and walk with a very long stride (possibly leaping with each step). The size and shape of supposed sasquatch footprints do vary considerably, which may indicate a number of unrelated pranksters. Sasquatch sounds could also be faked fairly easily, critics say, possibly using a computer program that alters sounds from an animal or human so the noise sounds completely alien.
As for photographic evidence (which is relatively rare), skeptics suggest that the documented sasquatches are actually people dressed in ape suits. Sasquatch-believers recognize that many photos and films are hoaxes, but they say that a few of them would be very hard to fake. The most famous piece of sasquatch evidence, the 1967 film shot by Roger Patterson in Bluff Creek, Cali., is at the heart of this debate. Several Hollywood insiders, including "An American Werewolf in London" director John Landis, have claimed that the film shows a man dressed in an ape suit. According to Landis, the suit was designed by John Chambers, the special-effects master who created the costumes for the original "Planet of the Apes" movies. Chambers denies any involvement, but the rumor persists.
Sasquatch believers say there are several details in the footage that indicate the creature is not a person. The main evidence is that the figure in the film keeps its knees bent while it is walking (see The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization for pictures from the film). When humans walk, they lock their knees with each step, holding their legs straight. Believers also point out that the figure's skin and fur has a rippling motion, like a living creature's moving flesh, and that the surface of a costume would not move this way. Skeptics counter that the rippling-skin effect can be achieved by attaching a "water-bag" under the suit. According to E! Online: Bigfoot Movie: A Hollywood Hoax?, several Hollywood effects artists say the figure is obviously a guy in an ape suit with a water-bag fastened to his stomach.
But what about all the reported sightings? Believers make the point that people from all age groups, socioeconomic backgrounds and education levels say they've seen the creatures, indicating that the sightings are not an isolated phenomenon limited to a few pranksters and kooks. Skeptics counter that while these people aren't necessarily lying about what they've seen, they may be mistaken. A bear in the wild will stand up on its hind legs, possibly giving the impression of a tall primate. Impressions are highly subjective, skeptics note, and may be skewed when a person
Hi ..I`m the JoeBoy and the BIGGEST TROLL on the whole SITE.
DeleteOh YEAH ...I`m going to be here for a VERY VERY LONG TIME.
Bigfoot or Monkey Suits and Fake Feet?
In the last section, we saw that many believers propose that the sasquatch is a giant primate, descended from the prehistoric gigantopithecus. Skeptics recognize that such a creature could exist, but hold that it is highly unlikely the creature could have lived close to inhabited areas for hundreds of years without anyone gathering conclusive evidence. The more likely explanation, according to the debunkers, is that several independent hoaxers have built up a collection of false evidence that has duped a very large number of people.
One of the most common types of sasquatch evidence is casts of giant footprints. Skeptics point out that this evidence is fairly simple to fake.
To make "bigfoot" prints, a prankster would just mold two large feet out of plaster, attach them to the bottom of his shoes and walk with a very long stride (possibly leaping with each step). The size and shape of supposed sasquatch footprints do vary considerably, which may indicate a number of unrelated pranksters. Sasquatch sounds could also be faked fairly easily, critics say, possibly using a computer program that alters sounds from an animal or human so the noise sounds completely alien.
As for photographic evidence (which is relatively rare), skeptics suggest that the documented sasquatches are actually people dressed in ape suits. Sasquatch-believers recognize that many photos and films are hoaxes, but they say that a few of them would be very hard to fake. The most famous piece of sasquatch evidence, the 1967 film shot by Roger Patterson in Bluff Creek, Cali., is at the heart of this debate. Several Hollywood insiders, including "An American Werewolf in London" director John Landis, have claimed that the film shows a man dressed in an ape suit. According to Landis, the suit was designed by John Chambers, the special-effects master who created the costumes for the original "Planet of the Apes" movies. Chambers denies any involvement, but the rumor persists.
Sasquatch believers say there are several details in the footage that indicate the creature is not a person. The main evidence is that the figure in the film keeps its knees bent while it is walking (see The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization for pictures from the film). When humans walk, they lock their knees with each step, holding their legs straight. Believers also point out that the figure's skin and fur has a rippling motion, like a living creature's moving flesh, and that the surface of a costume would not move this way. Skeptics counter that the rippling-skin effect can be achieved by attaching a "water-bag" under the suit. According to E! Online: Bigfoot Movie: A Hollywood Hoax?, several Hollywood effects artists say the figure is obviously a guy in an ape suit with a water-bag fastened to his stomach.
But what about all the reported sightings? Believers make the point that people from all age groups, socioeconomic backgrounds and education levels say they've seen the creatures, indicating that the sightings are not an isolated phenomenon limited to a few pranksters and kooks. Skeptics counter that while these people aren't necessarily lying about what they've seen, they may be mistaken. A bear in the wild will stand up on its hind legs, possibly giving the impression of a tall primate. Impressions are highly subjective, skeptics note, and may be skewed when a person
Hi ..I`m the JoeBoy and the BIGGEST TROLL on the whole SITE.
DeleteOh YEAH ...I`m going to be here for a VERY VERY LONG TIME.
Bigfoot or Monkey Suits and Fake Feet?
In the last section, we saw that many believers propose that the sasquatch is a giant primate, descended from the prehistoric gigantopithecus. Skeptics recognize that such a creature could exist, but hold that it is highly unlikely the creature could have lived close to inhabited areas for hundreds of years without anyone gathering conclusive evidence. The more likely explanation, according to the debunkers, is that several independent hoaxers have built up a collection of false evidence that has duped a very large number of people.
One of the most common types of sasquatch evidence is casts of giant footprints. Skeptics point out that this evidence is fairly simple to fake.
To make "bigfoot" prints, a prankster would just mold two large feet out of plaster, attach them to the bottom of his shoes and walk with a very long stride (possibly leaping with each step). The size and shape of supposed sasquatch footprints do vary considerably, which may indicate a number of unrelated pranksters. Sasquatch sounds could also be faked fairly easily, critics say, possibly using a computer program that alters sounds from an animal or human so the noise sounds completely alien.
As for photographic evidence (which is relatively rare), skeptics suggest that the documented sasquatches are actually people dressed in ape suits. Sasquatch-believers recognize that many photos and films are hoaxes, but they say that a few of them would be very hard to fake. The most famous piece of sasquatch evidence, the 1967 film shot by Roger Patterson in Bluff Creek, Cali., is at the heart of this debate. Several Hollywood insiders, including "An American Werewolf in London" director John Landis, have claimed that the film shows a man dressed in an ape suit. According to Landis, the suit was designed by John Chambers, the special-effects master who created the costumes for the original "Planet of the Apes" movies. Chambers denies any involvement, but the rumor persists.
Sasquatch believers say there are several details in the footage that indicate the creature is not a person. The main evidence is that the figure in the film keeps its knees bent while it is walking (see The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization for pictures from the film). When humans walk, they lock their knees with each step, holding their legs straight. Believers also point out that the figure's skin and fur has a rippling motion, like a living creature's moving flesh, and that the surface of a costume would not move this way. Skeptics counter that the rippling-skin effect can be achieved by attaching a "water-bag" under the suit. According to E! Online: Bigfoot Movie: A Hollywood Hoax?, several Hollywood effects artists say the figure is obviously a guy in an ape suit with a water-bag fastened to his stomach.
But what about all the reported sightings? Believers make the point that people from all age groups, socioeconomic backgrounds and education levels say they've seen the creatures, indicating that the sightings are not an isolated phenomenon limited to a few pranksters and kooks. Skeptics counter that while these people aren't necessarily lying about what they've seen, they may be mistaken. A bear in the wild will stand up on its hind legs, possibly giving the impression of a tall primate. Impressions are highly subjective, skeptics note, and may be skewed when a person
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
DeleteSHURE AM
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
SHURE AM
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
SHURE AM
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
SHURE AM
What are you gonna do when I post the response to that comment later?????
DeleteI checked MK Davis' web page and he lists the fact that the toes are visible but nothing beyond that. Perhaps toes would be unusual in a costume of that era -I honestly don't know- but in itself it doesn't seem remarkable to me.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what FISH EYES has to say about THAT!!
DeleteHi ..I`m the JoeBoy and the BIGGEST TROLL on the whole SITE.
DeleteOh YEAH ...I`m going to be here for a VERY VERY LONG TIME.
Bigfoot or Monkey Suits and Fake Feet?
In the last section, we saw that many believers propose that the sasquatch is a giant primate, descended from the prehistoric gigantopithecus. Skeptics recognize that such a creature could exist, but hold that it is highly unlikely the creature could have lived close to inhabited areas for hundreds of years without anyone gathering conclusive evidence. The more likely explanation, according to the debunkers, is that several independent hoaxers have built up a collection of false evidence that has duped a very large number of people.
One of the most common types of sasquatch evidence is casts of giant footprints. Skeptics point out that this evidence is fairly simple to fake.
To make "bigfoot" prints, a prankster would just mold two large feet out of plaster, attach them to the bottom of his shoes and walk with a very long stride (possibly leaping with each step). The size and shape of supposed sasquatch footprints do vary considerably, which may indicate a number of unrelated pranksters. Sasquatch sounds could also be faked fairly easily, critics say, possibly using a computer program that alters sounds from an animal or human so the noise sounds completely alien.
As for photographic evidence (which is relatively rare), skeptics suggest that the documented sasquatches are actually people dressed in ape suits. Sasquatch-believers recognize that many photos and films are hoaxes, but they say that a few of them would be very hard to fake. The most famous piece of sasquatch evidence, the 1967 film shot by Roger Patterson in Bluff Creek, Cali., is at the heart of this debate. Several Hollywood insiders, including "An American Werewolf in London" director John Landis, have claimed that the film shows a man dressed in an ape suit. According to Landis, the suit was designed by John Chambers, the special-effects master who created the costumes for the original "Planet of the Apes" movies. Chambers denies any involvement, but the rumor persists.
Sasquatch believers say there are several details in the footage that indicate the creature is not a person. The main evidence is that the figure in the film keeps its knees bent while it is walking (see The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization for pictures from the film). When humans walk, they lock their knees with each step, holding their legs straight. Believers also point out that the figure's skin and fur has a rippling motion, like a living creature's moving flesh, and that the surface of a costume would not move this way. Skeptics counter that the rippling-skin effect can be achieved by attaching a "water-bag" under the suit. According to E! Online: Bigfoot Movie: A Hollywood Hoax?, several Hollywood effects artists say the figure is obviously a guy in an ape suit with a water-bag fastened to his stomach.
But what about all the reported sightings? Believers make the point that people from all age groups, socioeconomic backgrounds and education levels say they've seen the creatures, indicating that the sightings are not an isolated phenomenon limited to a few pranksters and kooks. Skeptics counter that while these people aren't necessarily lying about what they've seen, they may be mistaken. A bear in the wild will stand up on its hind legs, possibly giving the impression of a tall primate. Impressions are highly subjective, skeptics note, and may be skewed when a person
The movie, "Mark of the Gorilla", a Johnny Weissmuller film from 1950 has gorilla costumes with feet and toes. It's not like no one had any idea that gorillas had toes until after the Patterson film. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042713/
DeleteI now have a bigfoot foot fetish!
ReplyDeleteHi ..I`m the JoeBoy and the BIGGEST TROLL on the whole SITE.
DeleteOh YEAH ...I`m going to be here for a VERY VERY LONG TIME.
Bigfoot or Monkey Suits and Fake Feet?
In the last section, we saw that many believers propose that the sasquatch is a giant primate, descended from the prehistoric gigantopithecus. Skeptics recognize that such a creature could exist, but hold that it is highly unlikely the creature could have lived close to inhabited areas for hundreds of years without anyone gathering conclusive evidence. The more likely explanation, according to the debunkers, is that several independent hoaxers have built up a collection of false evidence that has duped a very large number of people.
One of the most common types of sasquatch evidence is casts of giant footprints. Skeptics point out that this evidence is fairly simple to fake.
To make "bigfoot" prints, a prankster would just mold two large feet out of plaster, attach them to the bottom of his shoes and walk with a very long stride (possibly leaping with each step). The size and shape of supposed sasquatch footprints do vary considerably, which may indicate a number of unrelated pranksters. Sasquatch sounds could also be faked fairly easily, critics say, possibly using a computer program that alters sounds from an animal or human so the noise sounds completely alien.
As for photographic evidence (which is relatively rare), skeptics suggest that the documented sasquatches are actually people dressed in ape suits. Sasquatch-believers recognize that many photos and films are hoaxes, but they say that a few of them would be very hard to fake. The most famous piece of sasquatch evidence, the 1967 film shot by Roger Patterson in Bluff Creek, Cali., is at the heart of this debate. Several Hollywood insiders, including "An American Werewolf in London" director John Landis, have claimed that the film shows a man dressed in an ape suit. According to Landis, the suit was designed by John Chambers, the special-effects master who created the costumes for the original "Planet of the Apes" movies. Chambers denies any involvement, but the rumor persists.
Sasquatch believers say there are several details in the footage that indicate the creature is not a person. The main evidence is that the figure in the film keeps its knees bent while it is walking (see The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization for pictures from the film). When humans walk, they lock their knees with each step, holding their legs straight. Believers also point out that the figure's skin and fur has a rippling motion, like a living creature's moving flesh, and that the surface of a costume would not move this way. Skeptics counter that the rippling-skin effect can be achieved by attaching a "water-bag" under the suit. According to E! Online: Bigfoot Movie: A Hollywood Hoax?, several Hollywood effects artists say the figure is obviously a guy in an ape suit with a water-bag fastened to his stomach.
But what about all the reported sightings? Believers make the point that people from all age groups, socioeconomic backgrounds and education levels say they've seen the creatures, indicating that the sightings are not an isolated phenomenon limited to a few pranksters and kooks. Skeptics counter that while these people aren't necessarily lying about what they've seen, they may be mistaken. A bear in the wild will stand up on its hind legs, possibly giving the impression of a tall primate. Impressions are highly subjective, skeptics note, and may be skewed when a person
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
DeleteSHURE AM
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
SHURE AM
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
SHURE AM
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
SHURE AM
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
SHURE AM
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
SHURE AM
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
SHURE AM
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
SHURE AM
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
SHURE AM
GOOD MORNING BA DA BA DA DA DA DA GOOD FUKIN MORNING FOLKS DICK THEM TIRES AND LITE THEM FIRES WOOOOO WOOOOO
ReplyDeleteAm here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
DeleteSHURE AM
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
SHURE AM
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
SHURE AM
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
SHURE AM
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
SHURE AM
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
SHURE AM
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
SHURE AM
Fukin little faggot ass bitch
DeleteIt's not remarkable, it's just stupid. If this is all they have they're really grasping.
ReplyDeleteHaven't seen Joe this excited since he sat on that banana!
What? Suit features with extended toes in 1967 aren't remarkable? I think you're well into denial mode that you're even forgetting your own angles now, bro.
DeleteThis is just one of many, many aspects of the 'suit' that go against the deluisons of psuedoskeptics.
The guy up top was correct. Where is the rest of the data? Why can't we see every single frame at this quality? Because mk and Munns don't want you to that's why. This is not how all science works. Real science shares the data. Until either mk or Munns can share the data then nothing worthwhile can be taken from the film.
DeleteHi ..I`m the JoeBoy and the BIGGEST TROLL on the whole SITE.
DeleteOh YEAH ...I`m going to be here for a VERY VERY LONG TIME.
Bigfoot or Monkey Suits and Fake Feet?
In the last section, we saw that many believers propose that the sasquatch is a giant primate, descended from the prehistoric gigantopithecus. Skeptics recognize that such a creature could exist, but hold that it is highly unlikely the creature could have lived close to inhabited areas for hundreds of years without anyone gathering conclusive evidence. The more likely explanation, according to the debunkers, is that several independent hoaxers have built up a collection of false evidence that has duped a very large number of people.
One of the most common types of sasquatch evidence is casts of giant footprints. Skeptics point out that this evidence is fairly simple to fake.
To make "bigfoot" prints, a prankster would just mold two large feet out of plaster, attach them to the bottom of his shoes and walk with a very long stride (possibly leaping with each step). The size and shape of supposed sasquatch footprints do vary considerably, which may indicate a number of unrelated pranksters. Sasquatch sounds could also be faked fairly easily, critics say, possibly using a computer program that alters sounds from an animal or human so the noise sounds completely alien.
As for photographic evidence (which is relatively rare), skeptics suggest that the documented sasquatches are actually people dressed in ape suits. Sasquatch-believers recognize that many photos and films are hoaxes, but they say that a few of them would be very hard to fake. The most famous piece of sasquatch evidence, the 1967 film shot by Roger Patterson in Bluff Creek, Cali., is at the heart of this debate. Several Hollywood insiders, including "An American Werewolf in London" director John Landis, have claimed that the film shows a man dressed in an ape suit. According to Landis, the suit was designed by John Chambers, the special-effects master who created the costumes for the original "Planet of the Apes" movies. Chambers denies any involvement, but the rumor persists.
Sasquatch believers say there are several details in the footage that indicate the creature is not a person. The main evidence is that the figure in the film keeps its knees bent while it is walking (see The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization for pictures from the film). When humans walk, they lock their knees with each step, holding their legs straight. Believers also point out that the figure's skin and fur has a rippling motion, like a living creature's moving flesh, and that the surface of a costume would not move this way. Skeptics counter that the rippling-skin effect can be achieved by attaching a "water-bag" under the suit. According to E! Online: Bigfoot Movie: A Hollywood Hoax?, several Hollywood effects artists say the figure is obviously a guy in an ape suit with a water-bag fastened to his stomach.
But what about all the reported sightings? Believers make the point that people from all age groups, socioeconomic backgrounds and education levels say they've seen the creatures, indicating that the sightings are not an isolated phenomenon limited to a few pranksters and kooks. Skeptics counter that while these people aren't necessarily lying about what they've seen, they may be mistaken. A bear in the wild will stand up on its hind legs, possibly giving the impression of a tall primate. Impressions are highly subjective, skeptics note, and may be skewed when a person
3:47...
Delete"I gather from your remarks you are new to the PGF situation. The film rights are privately held, with a curious split in licensing rights, whereby Roger
Patterson's widow, Patricia, is entitled to license showing or usage of the film footage, while Eric Dahinden, son of researcher Rene Dahinden, is entitled to license publication rights to stills from the film (with some ambiguity as to whether that's some frames or every frame). There is further ambiguity as to
whether a image display of more than one frame, such as an animated .gif file is considered a still or footage use.
There is a certain amount of "fair use" showing of still frames and animated portions for research purposes, particularly on the internet, but TV producers
and book/magazine publishers generally must get formal licenses and pay fees for same, to use the footage or frame stills.So while the research into this filmed mystery is scientific (with intent to determine factually what it is we see in the film), the source material is in fact privately help and subject to licenses for display and use.
It's an awkward situation for us. But that's the situation. So at present, there is no public archive posting of every frame of the film that is free for anyone. Most people acquire frames by doing frame grabs from the variosu DVD's that show the footage, the most popular being the Legend Meets Science DVD."
Bill
MK Davis just provided more proof that Patty is NOT a guy in a suit.
ReplyDeletePG film is legit.
Accept it skeptics. You will never EVER find the costume because there is NO costume or suit.
And you will never ever find a bigfoot cos they don't exist.
DeleteHi ..I`m the JoeBoy and the BIGGEST TROLL on the whole SITE.
DeleteOh YEAH ...I`m going to be here for a VERY VERY LONG TIME.
Bigfoot or Monkey Suits and Fake Feet?
In the last section, we saw that many believers propose that the sasquatch is a giant primate, descended from the prehistoric gigantopithecus. Skeptics recognize that such a creature could exist, but hold that it is highly unlikely the creature could have lived close to inhabited areas for hundreds of years without anyone gathering conclusive evidence. The more likely explanation, according to the debunkers, is that several independent hoaxers have built up a collection of false evidence that has duped a very large number of people.
One of the most common types of sasquatch evidence is casts of giant footprints. Skeptics point out that this evidence is fairly simple to fake.
To make "bigfoot" prints, a prankster would just mold two large feet out of plaster, attach them to the bottom of his shoes and walk with a very long stride (possibly leaping with each step). The size and shape of supposed sasquatch footprints do vary considerably, which may indicate a number of unrelated pranksters. Sasquatch sounds could also be faked fairly easily, critics say, possibly using a computer program that alters sounds from an animal or human so the noise sounds completely alien.
As for photographic evidence (which is relatively rare), skeptics suggest that the documented sasquatches are actually people dressed in ape suits. Sasquatch-believers recognize that many photos and films are hoaxes, but they say that a few of them would be very hard to fake. The most famous piece of sasquatch evidence, the 1967 film shot by Roger Patterson in Bluff Creek, Cali., is at the heart of this debate. Several Hollywood insiders, including "An American Werewolf in London" director John Landis, have claimed that the film shows a man dressed in an ape suit. According to Landis, the suit was designed by John Chambers, the special-effects master who created the costumes for the original "Planet of the Apes" movies. Chambers denies any involvement, but the rumor persists.
Sasquatch believers say there are several details in the footage that indicate the creature is not a person. The main evidence is that the figure in the film keeps its knees bent while it is walking (see The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization for pictures from the film). When humans walk, they lock their knees with each step, holding their legs straight. Believers also point out that the figure's skin and fur has a rippling motion, like a living creature's moving flesh, and that the surface of a costume would not move this way. Skeptics counter that the rippling-skin effect can be achieved by attaching a "water-bag" under the suit. According to E! Online: Bigfoot Movie: A Hollywood Hoax?, several Hollywood effects artists say the figure is obviously a guy in an ape suit with a water-bag fastened to his stomach.
But what about all the reported sightings? Believers make the point that people from all age groups, socioeconomic backgrounds and education levels say they've seen the creatures, indicating that the sightings are not an isolated phenomenon limited to a few pranksters and kooks. Skeptics counter that while these people aren't necessarily lying about what they've seen, they may be mistaken. A bear in the wild will stand up on its hind legs, possibly giving the impression of a tall primate. Impressions are highly subjective, skeptics note, and may be skewed when a person
Anyone else see the slightest suggestion of a mid-tarsal break in that close up?
ReplyDeleteHad the pleasure of seeing the Bluff Creek casts recently. Archetypal BF foot features found on these.
MMG
Dumb^
DeleteHi ..I`m the JoeBoy and the BIGGEST TROLL on the whole SITE.
DeleteOh YEAH ...I`m going to be here for a VERY VERY LONG TIME.
Bigfoot or Monkey Suits and Fake Feet?
In the last section, we saw that many believers propose that the sasquatch is a giant primate, descended from the prehistoric gigantopithecus. Skeptics recognize that such a creature could exist, but hold that it is highly unlikely the creature could have lived close to inhabited areas for hundreds of years without anyone gathering conclusive evidence. The more likely explanation, according to the debunkers, is that several independent hoaxers have built up a collection of false evidence that has duped a very large number of people.
One of the most common types of sasquatch evidence is casts of giant footprints. Skeptics point out that this evidence is fairly simple to fake.
To make "bigfoot" prints, a prankster would just mold two large feet out of plaster, attach them to the bottom of his shoes and walk with a very long stride (possibly leaping with each step). The size and shape of supposed sasquatch footprints do vary considerably, which may indicate a number of unrelated pranksters. Sasquatch sounds could also be faked fairly easily, critics say, possibly using a computer program that alters sounds from an animal or human so the noise sounds completely alien.
As for photographic evidence (which is relatively rare), skeptics suggest that the documented sasquatches are actually people dressed in ape suits. Sasquatch-believers recognize that many photos and films are hoaxes, but they say that a few of them would be very hard to fake. The most famous piece of sasquatch evidence, the 1967 film shot by Roger Patterson in Bluff Creek, Cali., is at the heart of this debate. Several Hollywood insiders, including "An American Werewolf in London" director John Landis, have claimed that the film shows a man dressed in an ape suit. According to Landis, the suit was designed by John Chambers, the special-effects master who created the costumes for the original "Planet of the Apes" movies. Chambers denies any involvement, but the rumor persists.
Sasquatch believers say there are several details in the footage that indicate the creature is not a person. The main evidence is that the figure in the film keeps its knees bent while it is walking (see The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization for pictures from the film). When humans walk, they lock their knees with each step, holding their legs straight. Believers also point out that the figure's skin and fur has a rippling motion, like a living creature's moving flesh, and that the surface of a costume would not move this way. Skeptics counter that the rippling-skin effect can be achieved by attaching a "water-bag" under the suit. According to E! Online: Bigfoot Movie: A Hollywood Hoax?, several Hollywood effects artists say the figure is obviously a guy in an ape suit with a water-bag fastened to his stomach.
But what about all the reported sightings? Believers make the point that people from all age groups, socioeconomic backgrounds and education levels say they've seen the creatures, indicating that the sightings are not an isolated phenomenon limited to a few pranksters and kooks. Skeptics counter that while these people aren't necessarily lying about what they've seen, they may be mistaken. A bear in the wild will stand up on its hind legs, possibly giving the impression of a tall primate. Impressions are highly subjective, skeptics note, and may be skewed when a person
Go away mmgay spread your homosexual way another day
DeleteYou trolls are taking butt hurt to a brand new level.
DeleteI like it very much.
Spectacular meltdown on a level not yet seen before.
Like an electronic white flag.
MMG
Dude, you're an idiot. A very large, gender confused idiot.
DeleteA .monkey suit has toes? So what? Still no actual bigfoots anywhere ever:)
ReplyDeleteHi ..I`m the JoeBoy and the BIGGEST TROLL on the whole SITE.
DeleteOh YEAH ...I`m going to be here for a VERY VERY LONG TIME.
Bigfoot or Monkey Suits and Fake Feet?
In the last section, we saw that many believers propose that the sasquatch is a giant primate, descended from the prehistoric gigantopithecus. Skeptics recognize that such a creature could exist, but hold that it is highly unlikely the creature could have lived close to inhabited areas for hundreds of years without anyone gathering conclusive evidence. The more likely explanation, according to the debunkers, is that several independent hoaxers have built up a collection of false evidence that has duped a very large number of people.
One of the most common types of sasquatch evidence is casts of giant footprints. Skeptics point out that this evidence is fairly simple to fake.
To make "bigfoot" prints, a prankster would just mold two large feet out of plaster, attach them to the bottom of his shoes and walk with a very long stride (possibly leaping with each step). The size and shape of supposed sasquatch footprints do vary considerably, which may indicate a number of unrelated pranksters. Sasquatch sounds could also be faked fairly easily, critics say, possibly using a computer program that alters sounds from an animal or human so the noise sounds completely alien.
As for photographic evidence (which is relatively rare), skeptics suggest that the documented sasquatches are actually people dressed in ape suits. Sasquatch-believers recognize that many photos and films are hoaxes, but they say that a few of them would be very hard to fake. The most famous piece of sasquatch evidence, the 1967 film shot by Roger Patterson in Bluff Creek, Cali., is at the heart of this debate. Several Hollywood insiders, including "An American Werewolf in London" director John Landis, have claimed that the film shows a man dressed in an ape suit. According to Landis, the suit was designed by John Chambers, the special-effects master who created the costumes for the original "Planet of the Apes" movies. Chambers denies any involvement, but the rumor persists.
Sasquatch believers say there are several details in the footage that indicate the creature is not a person. The main evidence is that the figure in the film keeps its knees bent while it is walking (see The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization for pictures from the film). When humans walk, they lock their knees with each step, holding their legs straight. Believers also point out that the figure's skin and fur has a rippling motion, like a living creature's moving flesh, and that the surface of a costume would not move this way. Skeptics counter that the rippling-skin effect can be achieved by attaching a "water-bag" under the suit. According to E! Online: Bigfoot Movie: A Hollywood Hoax?, several Hollywood effects artists say the figure is obviously a guy in an ape suit with a water-bag fastened to his stomach.
But what about all the reported sightings? Believers make the point that people from all age groups, socioeconomic backgrounds and education levels say they've seen the creatures, indicating that the sightings are not an isolated phenomenon limited to a few pranksters and kooks. Skeptics counter that while these people aren't necessarily lying about what they've seen, they may be mistaken. A bear in the wild will stand up on its hind legs, possibly giving the impression of a tall primate. Impressions are highly subjective, skeptics note, and may be skewed when a person
JTB Your a FAG!!!!!!!!!!!
DeleteThe role playing continues.
ReplyDeleteTo become a role player first the footer must accept the holy film as real despite it being an obvious sit that any 8 year old could spot. They must then swear allegiance to the cult by swearing on their hold book meldrums field guide.
"The role playing continues.
DeleteTo become a role player first the 'confident skepfooter' must accept the holy word of JREF and BELIEVE the footage is not real despite it being an obvious organic subject that any 8 year old could spot. They must then swear allegiance to the cult by swearing on their JREF forum field guide."
Got monkey suit??
The more and more bigfoot is proven not real the more and more footers try to promote the pgf. Rogers business model was pretty much perfect. Knowing that there were no bigfoots but many dumb rubes it meant his film could a) never be proven fake and b) become the main piece of "evidence" for the silly believers.
ReplyDeleteHis wife has had quite the life living off the back of Rogers last gift to her. Well played roger.
Well played indeed.
DeleteAm here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
DeleteSHURE AM
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
SHURE AM
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
SHURE AM
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
SHURE AM
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
SHURE AM
"The more and more bigfoot is proven not real."
DeleteHang on bro... I thought you couldn't prove a negative?? Also... Please find me where the evidence that's in line with consistent methods such as wildlife biology, anthropology, primatology, and forensics have been proven to not work once applied to this filed's evidence?
"the more and more footers try to promote the pgf."
Nope... I think you'll find the source as relevant 47 years later as it was the day it was captured. I find it amusing that you should try and conjure a scenario in your head that because you can't reinforce you stance, it's suddenly our issue. If you cannot provide a means of supporting your theories then the default position is that it's a real organic subject, and as the years roll by and you fail to deliver a monkey suit and the droves of evidence come in (including more footage and trail cam shots), it looks more like a scenario in similar to that of the mountain gorilla that took 60 years to successfully track... Though it was FOUND far earlier.
"Rogers business model was pretty much perfect. Knowing that there were no bigfoots but many dumb rubes it meant his film could a) never be proven fake and b) become the main piece of "evidence" for the silly believers."
Nope! I think in the first point, you are actually articulating how hopeless a situation it is for you (the realisation of reality does take hold in the end), and in your second point you are misunderstanding that there are DROVES of accompanying sources of evidence to go with this footage.
"His wife has had quite the life living off the back of Rogers last gift to her. Well played roger."
Well I take comfort in the fact that an old widow has income from one of the greatest pieces of footage in history.
Well played Roger.
Them hip waders though.
ReplyDeleteOuch.
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
DeleteSHURE AM
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
SHURE AM
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
SHURE AM
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
SHURE AM
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
SHURE AM
3:52...
Delete"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
... 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?
You sure know how to jack them up Joe. The kids wheels are just spinning !
DeleteMMC
Hee hee!!
Delete; )
Of course the suit had fake toes. Do you honestly think they would film Bob in a suit wearing boots?
ReplyDeleteHahahaha
DeleteAm here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
DeleteSHURE AM
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
SHURE AM
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
SHURE AM
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
SHURE AM
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
SHURE AM
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
SHURE AM
Am here ALL DAY today PEOPLE
SHURE AM
I'm sorry. I'm just a lonely divorced bald headed fat guy.I have no life but this blog.I know, it sucks to be me.I just wish that I had friends other than the imaginary ones that my mom made up for me.Oh well,I still have Angry Birds to look forward to. And I do like Joe. It's just that I have a inferior complex when it comes to Bigfoot. I know they're out there. But I get all scared when it's my bed time. I apologize to everyone cause my mommy caught me acting like a punk ass beech.Good night and if anyone else post after my time stamp on this post they're not me. Again I'm sorry.
DeleteStand-in CowardJoeyBoy.
Bro... What you gonna do when I get around to smashing your meltdown comment in around an hour????
DeleteThis isn't the first time you've had this metldown though, is it???
Hold on to your hats, this is gonna be mega.
As soon as the words deblurred and filtered were mentioned. Along with the name MK Davis you have a problem.
ReplyDeleteAs soon as anyone claims anything is a bigfoot you have a problem
DeleteIt's telling that the thing which makes the trolls go most berzerk is the PGF. They go apesh*t bananas on anything PGF, especially on anything showing evidence in support of the film subject being an unknown hominid.
DeleteTHIS JUST IN:
ReplyDeleteNew analysis by MK Davis clearly shows the subject of the Patterson Gimlin Film has hair.
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK JOETROLLBOY!!!
ReplyDeleteYea,keep hobbin on my knob and learn how to breath through your nose.Other than that, good job.
DeleteAs soon as another critical piece of evidence comes forward the trolls, skeptards, psuedoskeptics, that are infused with behavior patterns of narcissists, psychopaths, and sadists ( not my words but those of studies by psycologists ) immediately come forth with their craziness spouting out one frantic statement(s) after another they have learned from like people. OH BOY. I imagine a few of them are climbing out of there basement and whining to their mothers that that dam M K Davis is out there putting another nail in there coffin and they must gather forces and attack back in any outlandish way possible.
ReplyDeleteWhat I noticed from this besides the toes is this foot matched the track that Roger Patterson casted and presented to the public and remember that was 14.5 inches which would be size of a person in the 7 foot size range. Now the tracks were also deeper imbedded in the substrait than what a human could produce and was over 40 inches I believe 42 to 48 inch stride also outside of human capabilities and still move as fluent as Patty does in an effortless way in the film. Bob Titmus confirmed this a few days later as the boys were astute enough to cover the tracks and protect them for others to examine, something a hoaxer would have never done, as a hoaxer track would become obvious by a trained examiner such as Bob Titmus. Bob also observed that each track was different not in size but in how it impacted the ground, sometimes toes curled more or splayed more, something that would not occur in static fake costume feet or stamps.
A most fantastic piece of evidence MK most fantastic indeed. Since he had an early generation film copy perhaps Bill Munns can also pull this out since he has one also. JOE talks about Carl Onsilots evidence and I will search this out.
Chuck
Chuck... You're comments are always one's to look out for... But that was a cracker!
DeleteMorning gents
DeleteWhen I think of toes I think of this
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=itZOq_tKtz
MMC
I don't think the fact that "Patty" has toes is particularly impressive. To be honest, I think there are plenty of narcissists and anti social types on both sides of the Bigfoot debate.
DeleteThe fact that MK added red to the film in support of his Bigfoot Massacre theory should be cause for caution. That, and the theory itself. We have a gun flash also in the film according to MK.
DeleteJOE. The anti joe became one terribly angry sob when he read this today and lashed out in an attempt to hi jack this site as he did in the past which is normal behavior from what I have gathered from reading professionals talk about internet trolls, as you are well aware of. Kind of reminds me of a joke I read as a youth in I think Mad Magazine. What do you call a martian that farts in the bathtub and bites his own bubbles. Well adjusted.
DeleteBut like I stated earlier. Look at this foot and then look at the photos of Roger holding up his casted foot and you see the same thing. 14.5 inches long however it is not quite as wide as many tracks are. Certainly not near as wide as the 17 inch x 11 inch one ( most likely a male ) one that I found 5 miles from here in March of 2010 that was an exact match for the ones found by homeowner in BFRO report no. 33979 Miami County, OH that occured six months earlier 30 miles to the east.
Have a great day.
Chuck
MK has carried out some great work with his PGF enhancements.
DeleteUnfortunately MK has overstepped with some of his incredible claims and peddling of suspect footage.
MMG
I agree MMG about the incredible claims, massacre, etc.and few believe this and of course Bob Gimlin who I met has stated many times he would never shot one and would have only shot at Patty should she come after them.
DeleteHowever his initial stabilization then enhancements of the body and appendages over the years are sensational to say the least. I have a suggestion to those trying to get film. Get away from the digital and try the older cameras. They seem to take enhancements better.
Chuck
I don't believe in Joeboy
ReplyDeletethere is no evidence he exits
Women round these parts fear the Mudhole Monster.
ReplyDeleteI think plenty of men do as well.
DeleteOoops
DeleteI dropped my delicately braded flower.
Can you bend over and pick it up for me? Please
Mudhole Monster
NO SIR
DeleteWILD BILL old marine ans bear hunter gits on time fer tham Woman folk !!!
NO SIR
The skeptics sure have ramped up their bad behavior today, and that pretty much tells me everything I need to know.
ReplyDeleteYou are right Mr. Vegasthedog. Rant Cam in full force today.
DeleteChuck
I think one poster actually. At one time the comments here were actually pretty good but now you have to wade through trolls and people posting off topic.
DeleteWhy is there nothing done about it? I get all traffic is good for the sight, but the comments as you said suck for the most part.
DeleteI'm assuming the reason is that it would require more attention by a moderator and that they fear it would cut down on traffic too much.
DeleteTo Vegas the dog . 6 34 knows. People of gripped about it since the beginning although it was much better back then. Most of the truly good folks that were here for discussion and learning moved out quite a while ago for the reasons mentioned. I could suggest joining the blue forum at the BFRO. There is not a great deal of discussion but it is very civil and there are some great people there that have had a lot of experiences and we try to push the topic along.
ReplyDeleteChuck
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"Bigfoot or Monkey Suits and Fake Feet? In the last section, we saw that many believers propose that the sasquatch is a giant primate, descended from the prehistoric gigantopithecus."
DeleteWell some people do... I along with many others actually maintain its a human/relict hominid.
"Skeptics recognize that such a creature could exist, but hold that it is highly unlikely the creature could have lived close to inhabited areas for hundreds of years without anyone gathering conclusive evidence."
Having an approach to the subject being unlikely is perfectly healthy. It's quite a crazy concept, but the statement would hold weight if it wasn't ignorant of the FACTS that evidence is accumulated monthly. Sightings and physical evidence are documented monthly, whilst there are many examples of other sources
of evidence that account for every source of required evidence short of a modern type specimen.
"The more likely explanation, according to the debunkers, is that several independent hoaxers have built up a collection of false evidence that has duped a very large number of people."
Well, the truth is its a far greater leap of faith to assume that ten thousand years of cultural and contemporary references, that transition into modern mediums that accounts for verified evidence of all forms is the doing of a handful of hoaxers, as it is to look at the aforementioned historical facts and suggest there's at least SOMETHING to the reports. It would have to be a secret society of gorilla suit wearing people who've transcended the same idea across
cultures, at a time when they knew nothing of the look of great apes.
"One of the most common types of sasquatch evidence is casts of giant
footprints. Skeptics point out that this evidence is fairly simple to fake."
Dermals that exceed decades and States with same species traits found 50 miles into wilderness areas. Tracks are what wildlife biologists conduct much of their research on. Add a complex application of forensic scientific methods, a study of dermal ridges that outline a species then you at the very least, then this outdoes any suggestion of simple fakery.
"Sasquatch sounds could also be faked fairly easily, critics say, possibly using a computer program that alters sounds from an animal or human so the noise sounds completely alien."
The Sierra Sounds recordings became the subject of a year-long University of Wyoming-based engineering study to determine their authenticity and to understand the nature of the vocalizations relative to those of humans and other primates. The results of that study were published by the University of British Columbia Press in 1980 in Manlike Monsters on Trial, an anthology of professional papers presented at a 1978 UBC-sponsored symposium entitled
Anthropology of the Unknown. The study concluded that the unusual vocalizations were primate in origin, and that at least one of the voices exceeded normal human ranges. Although the study did not rule out the possibility of human source, it established that the vocalizations were spontaneous at the time of recording and that there was no evidence of pre-recording or re-recording at altered tape speed. The published paper is called Manlike Monsters on Trial - early records and modern evidence by Majorie M Halpin and Michael Ames.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"As for photographic evidence (which is relatively rare), skeptics suggest that the documented sasquatches are actually people dressed in ape suits."
DeleteWell there's plenty of evidence to suggest some indeed are. He problem is when you have anthropologists, wildlife biologists, primatologists, cosmetic surgeons, costume experts, etc, telling you otherwise. This cannot be ignored and the premise requires testing... All too often we hear the issue then transferred to the enthusiast who's argument is actually the one that holds weight considering the lack of supportive compromising data, and all accompanying sources of evidence.
"Sasquatch-believers recognize that many photos and films are hoaxes, but they say that a few of them would be very hard to fake. The most famous piece of sasquatch evidence, the 1967 film shot by Roger Patterson in Bluff Creek, Cali., is at the heart of this debate."
Yes... Got monkey suit?
"Several Hollywood insiders, including "An American Werewolf in London" director John Landis, have claimed that the film shows a man dressed in an ape suit. According to Landis, the suit was designed by John Chambers, the special-effects master who created the costumes for the original "Planet of the Apes" movies."
Get ready for it...
"Chambers denies any involvement, but the rumor persists."
Self obliteration right there. Also... Are we to now lean towards testing scientifically presented evidence with mere rumours? Self serving reassurance holds no double standard, no boundary of audacity it seems.
"Sasquatch believers say there are several details in the footage that indicate the creature is not a person."
Proportions being a factor, as well as the magic SFX defying monkey suit that has trumped 47 years worth of advances, yes.
"The main evidence is that the figure in the film keeps its knees bent while it is walking (see The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization for pictures from the film). When humans walk, they lock their knees with each step, holding their legs straight."
Whilst this is certainly achievable with comfortable practice, it is not a normal gate, and not one that would come naturally to someone.
"Skeptics counter that the rippling-skin effect can be achieved by attaching a "water-bag" under the suit. According to E! Online: Bigfoot Movie: A Hollywood Hoax?, several Hollywood effects artists say the figure is obviously a guy in an ape suit with a water-bag fastened to his stomach."
DeleteOk... Take it away Bill!
"1. Is there any documentation that Gamora actually accomplished this? No, there is none. There are testimonials from other men who performed in gorilla suits and studied his life and work who describe his doing so. It’s not true documentation, but to give the skeptical community a bit of slack, let’s concede that Gamora did in fact put some kind of waterbag in a gorilla costume. Then we go to the next level of proof.
2. Is there any documentation of his actual design? Did he use an old “hot water bottle” commonly used for home medicinal purposes? Did he use some type of custom-fabricated bag or pouch? Was it loosely hanging in the belly, affixed to the fur, affixed to the undersuit padding, or what? We don’t know, because virtually no documentation of the device design exists. So even if we assume he did something with water in it, we do not know what that something is, and if it
could be adaptable to breasts.
3. Did it work? We don’t know. There is virtually no documentation that any visible fluid and natural motion of the costume belly was actually achieved, no film footage we can watch to see it in use and in motion. Makeup and Special Effects people have actually designed things for costumes which failed to work, but like a sort of placebo effect, people who were told he has a waterbag in his costume belly might see him wearing the suit and the simple power of suggestion
was such that they thought they saw it move naturally. So they said, “wow, that’s amazing. It looks so natural!” (this likely said by people who have never studied gorillas, because there were very few in captivity in the 40‘s and in the zoos, they’d likely just sit in their cages, bored and lonely). In Hollywood, the power of suggestion is often enough to make people think that just because somebody put something into a costume, that it worked, even when it didn’t. But now, today, as scientists and researchers, we must ask, if it was
done, did it even work? If it worked, is there any documentation we can view on film to verify that it worked? And the answer is, no, there is nothing we can watch or study to verify it worked.
4. So, not knowing how it was designed, and what the water pouch was made of, and not knowing if it worked, we must ask, can it be adapted to make fluid-looking breasts? And of course, the answer is, no, we cannot make any such determination. We cannot even make an assumption that it would or might work.
Lacking that, we must look for other examples of the concept. Are there any documented examples of a makeup artist employing a water-filled device in a makeup or costume for any type of natural motion effect of the prosthetic? The answer is none. Even Stuart Freeborn, designing the apes for 2001 A Space Oddyssey (the Dawn of Man opening) had a R&D budget to make the most natural full body costumes ever created, and he started his R&D almost 2 years before the PGF was taken, and even he could not design a full and fluid breast effect for the female apes."
For further reading, please see link;
http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/2428-the-munns-report/page-138
"Skeptics counter that while these people (professionals of all walks of life) aren't necessarily lying about what they've seen, they may be mistaken. A bear in the wild will stand up on its hind legs, possibly giving the impression of a tall primate. Impressions are highly subjective, skeptics note, and may be skewed when a person
DeleteThe problem for psuedoskeptics is there are reliable sources of professional eyewitness testimony and embarrassingly for them, the legal system accounts for much of it. When you have people from walks of life like long term experienced hunters, geologists, lawyers, teachers, police officers, wildlife biologists, anthropologists, wildlife consultants, doctors, psychiatrists, business owners
and forestry commissioners reporting the exact same thing from
unprovoked and impartial circumstances you have an issue to deal with called professional consistency. More so when you put occasions of multiple eyewitness accounts where physical and biological evidence had been accumulated from one site. When there is steady level of reports that span cultures, then mediums, then into physical and biological evidence, then the reports by reliable professional
people hold weight. The truth is that sheer frequency of professional people who are accustomed to decades worth of experience in wildlife and the wilderness account for much of the opinion and accounts to which from the basis of this field. Police officers are also trained to develop a heightened attention to detail. To suggest that these very reliable people are merely seeing upright bears is an overly cynical and typical statement to make, that's obviously either rhetorical of ignorant of the very detailed accounts that span into the tens of thousands. When bears start walking with a stride, lose the snout for a flat face, grow crazy width in their shoulders and grow hands... Then the suggestion that trained, long term experienced professionals are being mistaken will hold weight. These people who account for hunters, forestry officers, etc, who have reported full frontal, very distinct features of the anatomy that account for nothing that looks like a bears, will always point out to you that
very obviously, bears are clumsy when they walk bipedally... They also don't run and jump.
Peace!
The copy/paste war rages!
DeleteMMG
fer shure - save typing
DeleteHey JOE have to make a comment about your statement at 7 25. I also think the Sasquatch is a human/hominid relic. However maybe Giganto is also a human/hominid relic. With only teeth and some jaw pieces there is not enough evidence to know what it was. It is only assumed by the powers that be that it is an ancient ape. Maybe Giganto and Sasquatch are one in the same. Maybe Giganto was the progenitor with a homo sapien woman also. Much to comtemplate. Any thoughts.
DeleteChuck
I could do without the long copy and paste jobs regardless of what side of the fence you are on.
DeleteVery, very interesting. Did you see that video D L Soucy did regarding the alleged Giganto cover up?
Delete8:05... It's simple... The longer the query the longer the response. You don't have to read my comment of course, but there's no danger of it terminating a thread like the guy having an epic meltdown.
DeleteJOE. Have not seen the vid. Have to put this on my list.
DeleteJust quickly what is the jest of it.
Chuck
I can't remember it too well myself, just that he'd come across a paper trail that may have meant that Giganto is indeed more hominid, but for various reasons it was classified a giant ape.
DeleteI'll see if I can find it for you.
http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/why-no-bigfoot-bones.html?m=0
DeleteThere we go Chuck!!
The mudhole monster is a real live entity in southern louisiana. Bigfoot is just a big fib.
ReplyDeleteyes and that otterman in alaska caswing a ruckess
DeleteI saw one in the 70's for myself, so I know they are real.
ReplyDeleteAny disbelievers out there?
Here is the only little tidbit of information you need to think about...
Would a couple guys in 1967 put someone in a monkey suit...
WITH BOOBS?????
No way, not gonna happen!
Do not know who you are. What state, nat. forest, circumstances, etc. It was in the 70s I saw one crossing a swamp just east of Houghton Lake, MI.
DeleteChuck
Morning Joe, Chuck, and all!
ReplyDeleteI love that MK keeps breaking this footage down and finding more and more details showing this creature is real!
A good day to you Texas Chick. Pretty neat piece of work is it not?
DeleteChuck
News Flash!
ReplyDeletePatty has toes, according to M.K. Davis. Now there's a fantastic discovery, and then again, maybe not. More, "no value added" research, brought to you by someone who is still trying to dig himself out of the hole that he dug himself into. After all the schizophrenic hallucinations that he either stated or implied that all persons associated with the PG film, were lying, I really am not impressed with this pathetic contribution of something that was so obvious from the film, that nobody has wasted their time in mentioning it. I can't even imagine what obvious feature that M.K. Davis is going to deblur next, and bring it to everyone's attention.
You can't see the fake suit for the life of you all.
ReplyDeleteNot in the PGF, no, it's not obvious fakery, no obvious costume. The toes are good evidence, along with other details in the film, in favour of its authenticity. I still want to be shown the monkey, mind you, but by the same token, I'm not going to deny aspects of the PGF which point to it being genuine.
DeleteEr, "fake suit", 10:16? Slip of the tongue? The suit itself is fake? I guess that would mean the PGF subject is a Sasquatch.
DeleteWhatever you can think about M.K. Davis, I consider him as one of the most competent in video analysis with Thinker Thunker. Together, they brought to light a bunch of points definitively interesting. The should be view with considerations.
ReplyDeleteRegards
Thanks M.K., for your opinion of yourself.
DeleteTroll ...
DeleteYep M.K. We still remember the fake braid that you photoshopped onto one frame of the video, the penciled in lips that you photoshopped also onto one frame, the clear pool that you turned to red and claimed that it was blood, the shadow on the ground that you claimed was a Bigfoot hide, the supposed handprint on the log that you found by hiking contrast on a less sun bleached section of log, the muscle bulge that you claimed was a fresh bullet wound and of course, the medical diagnosis you did of internal hemorrhoids from a rear view at 100 yards. That last one was particularly special. Schizophrenics. Can't live with them. Can't live without them.
DeleteI'm not about to read through every post on this site but the most compelling evidence to me in the PG film I don't believe I ever seen anyone mention before.
ReplyDeleteUp until about a year ago the only portion of the film I had ever seen was just the famous version of the side view of Patty as she walked off. There is a longer version that shows her from behind, and in at least one frame clearly shows the butt crack and the two cheeks rubbing together as she walks, not to mention the movement of the gluteus muscles.
Ever since I saw it I've been waiting for someone to make an issue of it and haven't seen one. Am I the only one that's noticed it??
That would take an even more elaborate suit to achieve, and I just don't see anyone going to that much effort, especially since I highly doubt that anyone at that time expected the film to ever undergo this much scrutiny.
JoeyTroll....youre a real waste of space dude...literally
~T
Yes and the spinal erectors are a wake up call in that rear view segment at the end of the extended film. Blevins tried to reproduce this aspect.
Deleteso are you 10:48..........so are you
DeleteI pointed this out about three years ago. However you are point on. This is not talked about much. Reason it is hard to see is because the glute muscles are so muscular they do not move in the same way a normal to overweight females do.
DeleteChuck
I've seen that footage as well, and I know exactly what you're talking about.
DeleteIt's amazing that JOEYTROLL hasn't seen it too considering it involves a butt crack, rubbing action, and the potential for dildos to cram his colon full of silicone.
You know I get blocked just for saying VA GINA GUD
ReplyDeleteI got the suit from the pawn shop, 4th and Vine. It has the toes. I got it. I'll show you. Smoked.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing you're smoking is POLE.
DeleteI life turtles
ReplyDeleteYou cant recreate the movements in that rear view, that would be harder to debunk than toes. M.K. needs to work on that portion of the video.
ReplyDelete~T
Here's the big picture. Number one, if you would have created a Bigfoot suit, in 1967, would you have gone to all the trouble to add breasts, toes, muscle movement, and even a butt crack?!
ReplyDeleteI can't imagine anyone in 1967 having the foresight that at some point there would be the kind of technology we have today to scrutinize that footage. Furthermore...why would they care whether it would stand the test of time if they were just looking for their 15 mins. of fame?
To all the skeptics that keep saying that such a suit would be easy to create....where is it? I've yet to see a suit that looks as good in any movie or television show unless its involved some sort of CGI. And here again...we're talking 1967!!
~T
I agree, it would be so easy to dismiss this footage if someone could make a suit which resembles Patti. This hasn't happened, and I believe there is a reason for that.
DeleteBingo. But you're just pissing into the wind because the close-minded skeptard trolls that INFECT this website will continue to do so forever and ever, it's a neverending uphill battle in the snow. At night. We are living in IDIOCRACY and people like joeytroll are the football player fuckin' every bitch in the room and popping out brain-damaged children with underage rednecks. They reproduce far faster than logic can even begin to allow.
DeleteFirst!
ReplyDeleteNothing to see here
ReplyDeleteMove along please,move along
Just wait until M.K. Davis is busted for photo/video manipulation on this. He's already color saturated "pools of blood" and everyone knows that much. Now, just watch footers, he'll be busted again for this heinous act.
ReplyDeleteBy the way Clueless Joe's anus is wrecked.
Hahaaa..Joe you have em' all gnashing their teeth and spitting nonsense. I'm so glad you are here to destroy all these skeptards!
ReplyDeletethe "monster suit" technology back in the late 60's was quite advanced. Just check out those old Godzilla movies... scary stuff kids.
ReplyDeleteGodzilla? Really? If you think that was some groundbreaking stuff...you must have been scared by HR PuffinStuff also.
DeleteLike I said, there was nothing out there then, or since, that is as life like as Patty.
~T
I guess that was a bad attempt at sarcasm. What I was getting at was that even the crafty Japanese couldn't make a decent looking Godzilla suit by the mid seventies. In my opinion, if Patty had been a guy in a suit, it would have been dismissed right away and we wouldn't still be talking about it today.
DeleteJOEYTROLLBOY is a mouth-breathing, cock-sucking mamma's boy that lives in the basement of his aforementioned mamma. I know this guy personally, I could give you all his street address and phone number right now, but I don't want charges pressed against me. I was snooping around his basement while he went upstairs to grab us some beers one time and I found a dresser drawer FILLED with dildos. Black, white, yellow, turgid, rotating.... you name it, this guy has every single make, model and type of ass-pounding, sphincter-stretching dildo you can possibly fathom. If I wasn't so horrified, I would be impressed with his attention to detail. It was really quite amazing, as hard as it is for me to admit that. Joey, you need to resume filming yourself while you pound your chocolate starfish into oblivion, it seems that's what you're really good at, so why not just focus on what you're actual capabilities are? Talking about a topic you have zero knowledge of gets you absolutely nowhere, except back in your mom's basement pounding your own asshole with dildos. Such a shame, you had such potential...
ReplyDeletewhoever wrote this has little to know understanding of the history of special effects makeup ("monster" make up), and as a result is quite insulting to any of us that have even a passing familiarity with the industry.
ReplyDeleteIndividual toes?
Are you seriously suggesting that the state of the art in prosthetic make up appliances for the '60s was somehow incapable of reproducing toes?
Also, 'enhancing' a single frame from a decades old piece of footage is...interesting, where are you deriving the extra pixels from? the original footage is nowhere near the resolution of even the shittiest cellphone camera.
You can zoom and filterbate all you want, but unless you can somehow increase the resolution of the original footage, you cannot 'enhance' the footage.
Period.
End of story.
If there weren't enough pixels gathered originally, then you are left with having to interpolate the missing data based on the available data.
The revelation of toes in and of itself is not impressive, even for the day. What is impressive however are the combined details of this figure, the toes are just another impressive aspect. As stated earlier, for someone to go to such effort in detail for a hoax just seems highly unlikely.
ReplyDelete