This Is The Best Bigfoot Costume Review Ever
After watching this review, I'm not picking this costume up. It's $500 and it's not all that great either. Watch this review and you'll understand why.
Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story
This story was circulating the internet way back in 2004, or maybe as far back as 1999. Back when everybody was on 56k dial-up modems and a "Facebook" was just a regular book with directory listing of names and headshots. This story was so disturbing and so shocking that nobody believed it at the time. It was the Robert Lindsay " Bear Hunter: Two Bigfoots Shot and DNA Samples Taken " story of the time. And like Robert's Bear Hunter story , this witness didn't have a name. The only thing known about the witness is that this person was a government employee, anonymous of course. The author of the story was a science teacher named Thom Powell who believe it really happened and that the whole story was an elaborate cover-up. Powell said the anonymous government employee alerted the BFRO about a 7.5 feet long/tall burn victim with "multiple burns on hands, feet, legs and body; some 2nd and 3rd degree burns". Sadly, there was no DNA samples taken from
Uno! Dos! and Tres!
ReplyDeleteHa!!
DeleteU need to look no further than
Deleteancient aliens - Aliens and Bigfoot - is SPOT ON!!!!
Not bad. Better than that stupid patty suit anyway.
ReplyDeleteYes, I can just imagine a primatologist, anthropologist, wild life biologist and plastic surgeon being fooled by this suit.
Delete(Sigh)
Plastic surgeon... lol that one in particular just tickles me
Delete^ Euphemism for "hurts like heck".
DeleteYou dont need to imagine it joe, they actually did get fooled
DeleteYes, as claimed by little uneducated, unqualified you.
Deleteand what is your education if i may ask? You seem to think that your more qualified then 95% of the scientists, phds, and wildlife forensic professionals. that say there is no bigfoot. for every 50 names you can dig up, copy paste. there are 950 that say your wrong.....notice i did not call you names. i asked a question. so if you have to resort to grade school name calling please keep it to yourself
DeleteIt has nothing to do with my qualifications, my education, it has everything to do with the credentials of the list of scientists that you claimed have been so easily fooled, as opposed to you and your credentials, that is openly challenging those credentials... You dig?
DeleteIt's all very well these people claiming that "there is no Bigfoot", what good is the collective opinion of ten planets if they are ignorant of, or haven't even looked at the evidence that shows that premise to be ignorant and naive? So... It doesn't matter if you've got a gazillion scientists, none of them would have taken the time to analyse the data, because if they did, then they would be in agreement of some of the very best primatologists and conservationists in the world who are very much enthusiastic of relict hominids residing in wilderness areas on the planet.
Pioneers were always in the minority, and please pal, I don't need to hurt anyone with names, I do that with the truth.
Anon..1
Deletejotomi..0
scorebord baby!
It's beyond cringey that you score yourself, but how about you find me one scientist, one wildlife forensic professional and one PhD with an argument against this topic? Let's start with that, eh?
DeleteWhy have footers covered up the film that patterson toured with and why did they try to cover up the fact that patterson hired an actor to pretend to be gimlin on his tour?
ReplyDeleteThe footage of a Sasquatch that Roger and Bob shot, and the documentary that Roger intended to make to tell the stories of famous historical Sasquatch sightings, with actors, are two different things.
DeleteAnyone with a ten year old's knowledge of this stuff would know that.
Wheres the film then?
DeleteI suspect it really shows what a dog and pony show the whole thing was opposed to a scientific discovery.
Tou were shown the extended footage right here on this blog only the other day, and your types were claiming there was an imaginary third person in the film (a stump), it was hilarious. The footage for the documentary has in fact been used in a couple of shows down the years, all this is referenced on BFF's.
DeleteThat wasnt me. Wheres the link? Its the film he toured with?
DeletePossibly... I find it hard to imagine even more footage that he could toured with. Go click on "older posts" and look for yourself, nobody's doing your home work for you this time.
DeleteSounds like you are lying because the toured film is certainly not available anywhere.
DeleteSounds like you're grasping at comfort, because who are you to claim the toured footage is anything different from what we see in the newly released stuff?
DeleteNewly released? Link ta
DeleteYou were told, go look at the past posts on this blog, nobody's your dancing monkey.
Delete..You guys are talking about the "barnstorming footage"...The film Roger showed before the Patty clip...I think Mike Rugg has it but Roger's widow wont let him release it...I don't think there is a smoking gun, but it has some silly scenes that hurt the credibility of the whole enterprise such as DeAtley behind a desk pretending to be the head of a bigfoot organization....
DeleteI think that footage is meant to be used in a future documentary that coincides with Chris Murphy's autobiography on Roger Patterson... I believe.
Delete.....I would not be surprised...My guess is Mrs. Patterson wants a level of compensation Mr. Rugg is not prepared to meet...This footage is not to be confused with the "first reel footage" released last week..That is just what Roger and Bob shot before they filmed Patty.....Thanks...
Delete"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
Deletescientific (with intent to determine factually what it is we see in the film), the source material is in fact privately held 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 Munns
...This quote sounds like it refers to the PGF itself, but may apply to the barnstorming footage as well....
DeleteHmmm, I think you're correct.
Delete"There's a hell of a lot of space in America, but its trampled all over, and in biological terms, there is absolutely no chance at all that there's an unknown species of giant apes stalking around California or for that matter Canada. You see the bigfoot phenomenon isn't based on good science. It rests upon one thing, the Patterson film, and that is a hoax" - Chris Packham, Zoology PHD
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bigfoot-lives.com/assets/images/comparison1.JPG
Delete... Like totally. Who does stuff like that and passes it off as accurate? Someone who was given a PHD... Wasn't Elvis given a black belt? He flunked at it originally... And wasn't remotely qualified to pass his opinion at the time of X Creatures (or whatever the sham was called) and attained even less integrity given his methods of trying to get children sleep better at night.
Shame you cant find a quote from a phd with an opposing view to that.
DeleteJohn Bindernagel, PhD Courtenay, BC, Canada, Colin Groves, PhD Australian National University Canberra, Australia, Chris Loether, PhD Idaho Sate University Pocatello, ID, Jeffrey McNeely, PhD Chief Scientist IUCN - World Conservation Union Gland, Switzerland, Lyn Miles, PhD University of
DeleteTennessee, Chattanooga, John Mionczynski Wildlife Consultant Atlantic City, WY, Anna Nekaris, PhD Oxford Brooks University Oxford, England, Ian Redmond, OBE Conservation Consultant Manchester, England, Esteban Sarmiento, PhD
Human Evolution Foundation East Brunswick, NJ, Zhoua Guoxing, PhD Beijing Museum of Natural History Beijing, China.
None of them were given PhD's either.
Let me know if you want more.
Delete: p
Nice job Iktomi....cement head schooling at it's finest!
DeleteThank you, i've been schooling cement heads fro over 10 years now. I should be getting rather good at this
DeleteJoe
Joe i didnt ask for a list of names i asked for a quote.
Delete... And you got a long list of PhD's who are a part of one of the leading enthusiast's editorial board, off the back of his work looking at his work, to which is the antithesis of that kid's show presenter that got given a PhD.
DeleteKids show? Try prime time BBC to this day.
DeleteYou can not find a single quote with the sort of authority and statement of fact that packham gives.
A kid's show with a prime time BBC budget... And failed so miserably at making a monkey suit, ha ha ha!!
DeleteNo, I can find an online journal for papers on relict hominid research, that has the affiliation of all those PhD's.
Packham the sham who needed to edit an interview has nothing on them.
Nothing was edited. The whole statement where gimlin says he could have been tricked was continuous, no cuts or deception there. He actually said those words.
DeleteHe presents a BBC primetime wildlife show to this day numbnuts.
"All monkey suits are the same" - joe
Now I know you're trolling;
Delete"By the BBC's standards, Packham's narration and investigative style is amazingly self-serving, and strangely self-contradictory. Among Packham's tricks was his clever editing of the phone call with Bob Gimlin. What you don't see or hear in the documentary: Packham manipulatively goaded Gimlin on the phone into making some type of equivocating statement about the footage. Packham needed that type of statement from Gimlin. He needed something he could deceptively twist as "confession" by Gimlin that he's "not entirely sure" of what he saw that day. Packham goaded that type of statement by asking Gimlin, in such a tone as to gauge his reasonability ... if there could have been "any possibility at all" that it was a hoax. To which Gimlin gave an answer demonstrating that he wasn't too narrow-minded to consider the hoax possibility. Gimlin says Packham edited the phone conversation so it sounded like Packham merely asked Gimlin whether he "thinks it was a man rather than an animal." In that context Gimlin's response sounds much more equivocating than it was intended to be. But Packham had what he needed -- a statement that could be stretched to sound like doubts on the part of Gimlin. Not unlike Greg Long, Packham was on a predetermined mission to cast doubt on Roger and the footage. He had promises to keep back home."
Not that you need anyone else to tell you how terribly obvious the editing was. A kid's prime time budget and that's all Packham could come up with was a bad suit and an awfully edited interview.
No, monkey suits with a budget the BBC can offer, with modern materials, should be closer to what an alleged broke cowboy can knock together.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletemelonheads be heers shure is
DeleteRelic hominids are shot every day in America. Right now they are even celebrating the anniversary in Ferguson Missouri.
ReplyDeleteWhen the sort of people who peddle the pgf hoax think its viable to fly through a creek sat on a porch chair suspended from a helicopter you have to wonder why anyone would believe these people.
ReplyDeleteGot monkey suit?
DeleteGot shred of evidence?
DeletePlenty.
DeleteScat;
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/scat.htm
Hair;
http://www.texlaresearch.com/okhair4.jpg
http://www.texlaresearch.com/okhairroot.jpg
http://www.texlaresearch.com/unknown-chimp-bear.jpg
Bones;
http://sasquatchresearchers.org/forums/index.php?/topic/621-anthropologists-paper-on-the-lovelock-skull/
Forensically verified;
http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints
Audio;
http://www.sasquatchcanada.com/uploads/9/4/5/1/945132/kts_p182-186.pdf
Hi guys. Just checking in again here. Still nothing new in the BS world of bigfoot. Nothing there but ignorance and stupidity and wild imaginations and fantasy.
ReplyDelete... Yes, keep consulting the therapist, and we'll see you again next time. Don't let reality kick you in the backside on the way out.
DeleteThen why do you come here and waste our time with insults . Why not go to a science fiction forum where you can live your own fantasies without bothering us ?
DeleteJoe
^^ Because the stupid hurts too much. Someone has to fight it.
DeletePlus, it's hilarious to watch idiot footers squirm around with their simpleton excuses.
I think it's the truth that hurts you son, and your education on the subject isn't anyone else's excuses. Take some responsibility for your shortcomings, you spoiled brat.
Delete^^ Blow me, simpleton.
DeleteYou would probably pay me handsomely if I did
DeleteJoe
No thanks, Einstein... Now run along and tell people how nasty us "footers" are.
DeleteTrapper and Wild Bill AIMS Team say Bigfoots to smart for trapping they need to come up with a different approach
DeleteHow much more proof do you need to know that Patty was a guy in a costume?
ReplyDeleteIf it was a costume as you say than it is up to you to produce some evidence of the exact costume. are their photos of the costume , any film or will you go by the words of charlatans ? The PGF is all the proof I need old chap.
DeleteJoe
Only one bipedal primate around today: 6 billion "pieces of evidence" walking around for that. Sooo, if it looks like a bipedal gorilla, the suit is not very important. It's a suit. Friend of mine tells the story of sitting down to watch the sunset, three days hike off the main trails in BC. He gazed around at the undisturbed beauty to discover he was sharing it with an empty can of Fanta. Unless there is a conspiracy, we would have got one by now. Lot of bored people out there in those rural parts.
ReplyDelete