Sunday, November 8, 2015

Bluff Creek Film Dedication To Roger Patterson And Bob Gimlin


Youtuber tatehieronymus posted this short film dedication to Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin. The film was shot at the historic Bluff Creek area, just days prior to this year's anniversary of the Patterson/Gimlin film. The filters they use on the footage takes you back in time, with shots of the scenery of the area. It's no wonder people and bigfoot are drawn to the area.


57 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. I keep my poop in a jar.

      Delete
    3. Hey...I wonder whatever happened about the "bigfoot" story that we recently heard about bIgfoot getting shot ?

      Oh...WHAT`S THAT ? ...IT WAS ANOTHER HOAX AND COMPLETE LIE...

      NOW,THERE`S A SHOCKER.

      Delete
    4. I didn't not see one single person react enthusiastically to that nonsense... Unlucky baiter boy.

      Delete
    5. ^ Apart from you !

      We saw you saying it seemed valid and was "exciting news" or some such bleating.

      Delete
    6. Serious question... Are you like, twelve or something?

      Delete
  2. Muhhhhhhhhh best evidence is a film of a bloke in a crappy ape suit!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry... Did you get that monkey suit?

      Delete
    2. I am sorry i was unable to get a bespoke monkey suit from the 60s.

      You are to get an actual bigfoot? There should be thousands of those. You only need the one.

      Delete
    3. Don't you think they would have destroyed it? If got monkey suit is what you base your belief on. You seriously need help. Clearly the PGF is a hoax and I would question the intelligence and mental state of anyone who thinks different.

      Delete
    4. 3:27... What you could do, is demonstrate how it could be made with modern materials? Even though these were not available to a broke cowboy in the 60's. That would be far, far easier than going out and capturing what the best trackers in the world refer to as Boss of The Woods... Until then, you might be able to content yourself with the frequency of physical evidence. Remember, this being a suit is YOUR burden, as much is mine is showing you a "Bigfoot". The irony is every day you fail, the more the PGF gets rubbed in your face as being achieved 47 years ago.

      3:31... Ok, let's just imagine for a second that it is a monkey suit (I'll try reeeeeeeeeaaaaaaal hard for you, just you), then it would have to be a suit that not only defied Hollywood SFX for many years to come, running into the 70's (you can check this is you like), but it would also defy every known fur cloth technique in SFX history and to this very day. Someone isn't simply going to make a suit of that nature and then just destroy it.

      Clearly you need to demonstrate how a suit of this nature, that mimics skin folds & muscle tone which requires CGI today, filmed in direct sunlight (which goes against every single Hollywood SFX method of the time), can be made by a broke cowboy in 1967.

      Your burden...Your requirement of a monkey suit.

      Delete
    5. Leroy Blevins duplicated the "monkey suit" and he's not even a professional.

      Roger Patterson was a professional leather worker who worked in rodeos. Not only did Patterson have the skills to modify a gorilla suit, he had the professional tools to do it.

      Delete
    6. No... It took Blevins almost TEN YEARS to make this;

      https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-DiRWOLTsDyY/TY5X5k2O7fI/AAAAAAAADok/tiE7U9_Md_4/s400/Blevins+BF+Suit.jpg

      ... With modern materials, I might add. By looking at that as a comparison, one can deduce he certainly isn't a professional. Oh... And utterly embarrassing is the claim that a leather worker can trump a 100 years of fur cloth techniques and 50 years of SFX award winning experts. No gorilla suit, known to any SFX expert accounts for what is seen in the PGF. Leather worker does not equate to the skin folds and muscle tone we see on page 9 here;
      http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf

      Delete
    7. The point is that the Blevins suit does resemble the Patty suit, and Blevins is just some guy who tried to make a Patty suit at his house.

      You act like Patterson was some stupid cowboy who couldn't possibly have been smart enough and skilled enough to make a very convincing bigfoot costume. How do you know this? How do you know that Patterrson was stupid? Just because he was a cowboy? How do you know that Patterson was too stupid to possibly have made a bigfoot suit?

      There were/are professional costumers who have said that the Patterson suit could have been made in the 1960s. Hollywood special effects and costume master the late Stan Winston said that the Patterson suit could have been made in the 1960s for about $1,000.

      Delete
    8. The point IS, that 45 years later, Blevins invested almost ten years of his life making a costume from modern materials, that we never see in video motion, that the best photos have been manipulated to have the width reduced, that merely RESEMBLES (that's not what I would call it) what we see in the PGF... Perspective; if anything Blevins achieves nothing but strengthens the claim that the PGF is authentic.

      Do I act like Patterson was a stupid cowboy? Where have I stated that? What I have merely stated are facts in that not even the best SFX experts can trump what we see in that footage, it's not so much that I am calling him stupid as I am calling in the impossible.

      And on the matter of Patterson being stupid... This in fact is a glaring contradiction in your mindset. One minute he's a stupid cowboy not returning a camera, botching the timeline, etc (all put to bed I might add)... And the next he's the world's greatest ever suit maker, trumping even the very best Acadamy Award Winners? Which one is it?

      "If one of my colleagues created this for a movie, he would be out of business."
      -Stan Winston

      You see... This also just digs a bigger hole, because if someone like Stan can state that the costume could cost a couple of $100, then why couldn't a BBC budget manage it? Why couldn't Blevins manage it?? For someone with as big a rep, he didn't think that one out too thoroughly did he? Well if I someone who had knocked up a monkey suit to best 47 year's worth of advances, I'd hand him a job! Ha ha ha!!

      Where's Stan's fur cloth technique to explain what we see? Was this comment made prior to the footage being stabilised? Not like an SFX expert to claim such a thing when he's trying to come across like the best in the business now... Is it?

      Delete
    9. I didnt need to read the above to know there was no proof of bigfoots existence offered.

      Delete
    10. You'll know when there's proof... But if you're going to immerse yourself in a topic every day f your life, it is important that you try and learn something about it though.

      Delete
    11. At least you admit there is no proof and it is merely belief at this point. Fair play.

      Delete
    12. Hey Iktomi. Which is the real bigfoot? They all look entirely different. They can't all be bigfoot.

      Will the real bigfoot please stand up:

      The Patterson Gimlin "Patty"

      The Freeman Footage bigfoot

      The Leaping Yeti


      Which one is the real bigfoot? If as you say it's Patty, then the other two are more bigfoot BS hoaxes. Yet you believe that they are all legitimate.

      Delete
    13. Patterson has ben dead for over 40 years and hes still coning folks like Iktomi.

      Delete
    14. 6:04... There is no requirement for mere belief when you have the evidence to be convinced of... Evidence that leads to proof.

      6:18... In actual fact... Ummm... They all look like the exact same creature. Patty and Leaping Yeti especially. Open your eyes, that's an embarrassing attempt at trying to be clever.

      Delete
    15. 6:24... So did yo manage to find that monkey suit yet?

      Delete
    16. LOL. Are you blind? Patty and the Freeman creature do not look alike? And neither looks like the Leaping Yeti.

      See, this is a prime example of you seeing only what you want to see. Go back and look at footage objectively (if you are actually capable of doing that). They all look different.

      Delete
    17. Ok Einstein... How about this (I'll play your game for a minute)? How about you list the differences between them? We'll see how different they are...

      : )

      Delete
    18. 1 minute 35 seconds here;
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cR2cREt95sU

      http://youtu.be/wQr922oWdgY
      ... Whilst the size of Patty's backside is consistent with thousands of reports, not to mention a piece of footage up top that shows a matching specimen, complete with big butt, achieving stealth outside of normal human capabilities, in the Leaping Russian Yeti.

      We see "things we want to see"... Yet you see imaginary zippers and leather work on Patty, right?

      Delete
    19. LOL. I agree with 6:38. They do not look the same. The Freeman creature is skinnier, and the fur looks entirely different. Also, the Freeman creature is hunched forward, which is NOT the case with Patty.

      And neither of them looks like that stupid Leaping Yeti footage. By the way, the Russian guy who filmed that admitted that the "Leaping Yeti" was a an acrobat friend of his dressed up in a costume. The whole thing was staged. Look it up.

      Delete
    20. Dear trolls- you still haven't taken up my offer of starting a gofundme page and raise the money then create a suit that is matches the PGF. You will fail every time because you know it can't be done and instead of admitting defeat like the good wee lads you should be you continue the barrage of nonsense because you just can't admit defeat . We have Patty now i want to see your side produce your so called contender - aka - the monkey suit
      TKO suckers !

      Joe

      Delete
    21. (Sigh)

      Actually... There is not enough detail in the Freeman footage to draw any conclusions on the hair texture, and if anything, the one consistency is the way the hair shines in the sunlight. One can easily state that in some angles, Patty appears "hunched over" as well. The genuinely audacious thing here is, your approach is 100% subjective.... Try a little harder bro. What's more, is the anatomical differences you list could quite easily be down to gender, age, etc. For example... One might make the claim that in the Leaping Yeti, what we see is a younger male, in the manner it achieves stealth, apparent agitation, etc.

      You'd have a link to this Russian confession, yes? If it's not bad enough that you have to contradict yourself and adhere to hypocritical hand stands, you have to make up things to support your ideas... There';s a reason you have to do that.

      : )

      Delete
    22. Even some bigfooters have dismissed the Leaping Yeti footage:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuFv4ap7A94

      Delete
    23. Um... I'm sorry... Who's "Crypto Tom"?

      (Pfffft)

      Delete
    24. ^ HEY...got a bigfoot yet ?

      ...No ?

      hahahahahahaha

      Delete
    25. Yeah;
      http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf

      ... Ho, ho, ho!

      Delete
    26. The resolution of the Patterson Film, and the distance of the subject from the camera are responsible for much of what makes it look good. The truth is, people ascribe a great deal more detail to the film than is possible. One group of people see muscle movement, another sees padding. That's a problem. There needs to be new footage of at least comparable quality, preferably much better. The subject is not on camera long enough to reveal much. For every analysis that is favorable, there is one that is not. Time for newer evidence. This has been discussed ad nauseum.

      Delete
    27. Brother... Please open the link above your comment. The comparative detail is astounding. That's not just it... To me, the Leaping Russian Yeti it THE best footage ever; your requirements delivered.

      Peace.

      Delete
    28. Joe, posting as lktomi, telling Mike B, who is posting as Joe..........."Hi Joe"..........priceless

      Delete
    29. Whatever!! ,shoe shine boy &iktomi still = a pair of wortless TURDS!

      HA HA HA HA. IDIOTS!

      Delete
  3. Which part of this clip is where the PGF was actually filmed?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, Iktomi admits that he is clueless.

      Delete
    2. So, Iktomi admits that he is clueless.

      Delete
    3. In the creek they're in, they're a few miles down stream acctually.

      Delete
  4. Pwned by greg long and blevins

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Didn't you drop the Greg Long thang yesterday?

      Delete
    2. Keep up the great work Iktomi, the cement head line is a long one!

      Delete
    3. You know joe.I don't agree or subscribe to your theories.but I have to give you props for sticking to your guns.for that i give you respect....watch a few mark parra videos he's a good guy

      Delete
    4. Bless ya mate! You have a friend in me!

      Delete
    5. ^ ...in deep all the way to the hilt.

      Delete
    6. I was BS' n you (7:05 here) Jotomi !
      in reality you're a suck ass and a MORON!! LOL !

      Delete
    7. Yep, he's the moron. Not the guy who comes here everyday and acts like a complete shit heel. It's Iktomi, the guy who defends his beliefs with actual context. Christ man, just when I thought you trolls couldn't look any dumber, 9:31 makes an appearance and takes the cake. Literally, worst commentor ever. Zero substance, a 12 yr. old could reproduce his/her responses and nobody would know the difference.

      Delete
    8. I just worry about your dog Vegas. Its hard to say what youve done to it alone in your room

      Delete