Wednesday, July 6, 2016

The Greatest Bigfoot Story Ever Told


Outsideonline.com produced this awesome article about Bob Gimlin and the rosy behind the famous bigfoot sighting and film.

For weeks in the fall of 1967 the cowboys rode from sunrise to sunset in search of the creature no one had ever captured on film. Two rodeo men from Washington’s apple country, they’d traveled to Northern California’s thick forest. They’d read headlines of unidentifiable footprints. The smaller cowboy was driven by a long obsession with the mythic beast known as Bigfoot; the other liked to see things for himself.

One late October afternoon near Bluff Creek, the men trundled on horseback, half a day’s ride from the nearest signs of civilization. The sun shone bright, lighting the leaves all around them in a grand finale of orange and red and yellow. Roger Patterson rode in front, pausing his quarter horse to point his lens toward the leaves, the film chattering inside his rented 16mm Cine Kodak camera. When he finished, he tucked the camera into his saddlebag, leaving the leather flap open.

Bob Gimlin brought up the rear. He rode a pony, leading a packhorse loaded with supplies behind him. Patterson navigated around a bend where a large tree had fallen and jammed up the nearby creek—its root system upturned and exposed, like blind fingers reaching for an anchor.

For the rest of the article, click here.

147 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Doesn't your mom want you out of her basement instead of waiting around day and night for the next Bigfoot Evidence article?

      Delete
    2. ^ look who's talking LOL

      Delete
    3. Haints is so easy to spot, it's unreal.

      Delete
    4. This is of course "The greatest TRUE bigfoot story ever told" xx

      Delete
    5. FFS! A true living creature for sure, can't and hasn't been debunked FFS!

      Delete
    6. ^ Hands together,knees bent (don`t scuff the toes).

      Delete
    7. FFS! ^ The rebuttal of someone who has no ground to stand on and now can only insult someone because he fails lol! and a very small man indeed in all ways :) FFS!

      Delete
    8. And a fine MEOW to you sir!

      Delete
  2. The most likely answer is that it's a bloke in a suit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only way to prove it isn't a man in a suit is to collect a bigfoot specimen for study.

      And even then it's still probably a man in a suit.

      Delete
    2. Unless you can prove that it isn't a bloke in a suit, it's a bloke in a suit.

      Sincerely,
      Anti-Joe Iktomi

      P.S. Bertrand Russell agrees.

      Delete
    3. 3:23... Got monkey suit?

      3:41... If the source in question is presented as scientific evidence by an anthropologist, a primatologist, a wildlife biologist and a pioneering plastic surgeon... Then anyone critical of that bears a burden. How do you prove that the subject in that footage is a man in a monkey suit?

      If the subject in that footage is real, then the fact that no consorted mainstream scientific effort has been conducted since 1967, has no bearing on the existence of such a creature... Especially when reliable forensic evidence has surfaced since then.

      Delete
    4. A "flat earther" would be a person who believes or advocates theories that fly in the face of scienific rationality, and who believes or advocates an outlandish, discredited theory. It is a person who refuses to acknowledge the truth despite overwhelming evidence...

      That's a pseudosceptic using an alleged hundreds year old, culture-hopping conspiracy theory to explain away cultural and contemporary anecdotes that are substantiated by reliable, consistent scientific evidence.

      Delete
    5. Iktomi shuts them down !
      They are really from the flat head society and their guru is James Randi and they just hate the fact that some people believe in bigfoot despite all the vast evidence out there. it bothers them so much that they have trouble sleeping and after today they will have nightmares

      Joe

      Delete
    6. Joe - if someone is calling you a "flat earther"...I'd take it as a compliment.

      We are lied to constantly by everyone...the media, the government, our parents, friends etc. No big shocker the earth is really flat when you think about it. Nasa is a bunch of baloney...

      On the fence about Bigfoot - if "everyone" is telling you it's doesn't exist - I'm thinking it probably does.

      Delete
    7. >>A "flat earther" would be a person who believes or advocates theories that fly in the face of scienific rationality, and who believes or advocates an outlandish, discredited theory.

      So basically someone like yourself.

      I am interested in writing an article about you joe. I freelance and pitched this idea to a client recently. They are very interested in this.

      The basic premise will not be the reality of sasquatch or not. Instead it will focus on how you,and other believers,are so unwavering in your belief. But also I want to explore the question of why this belief is so important to yourself and those like you. It does seem to take up large amounts of your daily life.

      Thank you for your consideration.

      Delete
    8. 8:27... You make me smile.

      8:30... Sorry, I have no requirement for mere belief, because I have the evidence to be convinced by. I think it's slightly sad however that I've caused you to snap about the current state of evidence, to the point that you obsess and conjure fantasies of "articles" about me. Another one bites the dust, I guess. Apologies, but it's just a blog... Don't let it ruin your life.

      Delete
    9. I have to admit I have wondered about that subject myself Anon 8:30. I can understand why those who feel they have actually seen it would feel so passionate about proving it - not just to the world at large but also to themselves. What I am curious about is why those who have never seen it and never even looked for it, are so passionate about it being proven. What really is in it for them? The satisfaction of being proven right? I think it is not a common thing to make money much less a living off the Bigfoot belief but as I said before there IS money to be made and I think certain individuals take advantage of that. I see here those who believe take a lot of abuse so I know they are passionate about it. My question would be this: Don't you who believe get discouraged when year after year goes by and there seems to be no further advancement? It seems to me there are more sightings than ever and with the technology advancing shouldn't there be more evidence than there is?

      Delete
    10. What's in it for them? Money... It's what causes all the backstabbing and bitching that prevents this topic progressing adequately. Mr Curious, there could be the first year-long consorted scientific effort to track Sasquatch that comes up fruitless, as long as there's evidence I'll never be discouraged. I personally would never care if they're not classified by science, that's not something I need. Whatever man discovers, he destroys.

      Delete
    11. ^ fake Joe sans the perverse thoughts. You're making progress fake Joe. soon they will let you out on a day pass

      Joe

      Delete
    12. The earth is endlessly expanding and hollow on the inside Argatha baby

      Delete
  3. I much prefer the Non-Fiction and Biography sections of the Book store...never been keen on fiction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nobody's believing you've ever been to a book store. Especially with the amount of time you spend around a topic, and seemingly failing so comprehensively to learn a single thing. Reading obviously isn't your forte.

      Delete
    2. If you have Netflix, watch the documentary titled: The Truth Behind Bigfoot.

      This was done by National Geographic. Along with other information about bigfoot, this documentary includes various experts who break down the Patterson-Gimlin film in detail using the latest technology. The conclusion is that the film may well show an actual creature and not someone in a suit.

      This documentary is well done and should be viewed by skeptics. At least it provides scientific rationale so you can see why bigfoot believers think that there is actually something to the mystery and that bigfoot may actually exist.

      Delete
    3. It's a great documentary, but don't expect any of the pseudosceptics around here to rush along and watch it any time soon. There's too much special pleading on their part for that.

      Delete
    4. I watched it. Zero bigfoots and i laughed a lot.

      Delete
    5. Of course you watched it, you don't believe in Bigfoot. Makes perfect sense.

      Delete
    6. Vegas. There is no belief involved. Something either exists or it doesnt. As a psychology researcher the topic is fascinating (and often hilarious)

      Delete
    7. Fallacious argument to say that the only reason someone is here is because they must believe in Bigfoot or they must be a psychopath.

      Delete
    8. "Science is founded on the premise that we exist in a rational reality and from this premise it follows that every scientific belief can and should be based on evidence, otherwise it is not science. To be completely clear as to what is science it can be defined in one simple sentence; science is the unbiased effort to understand reality based on the observable physical evidence."

      ... And look what enthusiasts have for reference;
      http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints

      It's not fallacious to assume someone is subsceptible to a personality disorder when the topic they immerse themselves in should be providing them with some sense of satisfaction in the confidence that it is bunk... But clearly doesn't.

      "They want to inject their own emotional turmoil into other people by luring them into negativity. It's a way for them to feel some kind of control or power over their own disruptive emotions, at other people's expense."
      http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/11/world/internet-trolling/

      But you'd know all about that, being a "psychology researcher". Eh, 6:28?

      Delete
    9. 4;49 ... comprehension certainly isn`t your forte ... I`ll repeat myself for your benefit and state Fiction doesn`t interest me much.

      Try "googling" anything you are unsure of - it can help but only if you know what to ask and in your case you may need to ask a friend for assistance - highly likely you don`t have any friends so try the Social Services department if you don`t already have a key-worker (I expect you have one of these).

      Delete
    10. Yes, as a psychology "researcher", THIS is the topic that is "fascinating".

      Delete
    11. I have to agree with the statement made by Anon: 6:38. I've stated many times I no longer believe but it's just fun to come here and I don't consider myself a psychopath. The psychology of Bigfoot believe also interests me but I am certainly no "researcher". I don't stalk this place 24/7 but it is fun to check in every now and then and read the stories and comments. I don't believe I have ever directly attacked someone here for their belief but I know I have certainly voiced my skepticism at some of the evidence offered.

      I'm not going to debate the authenticity of the PG film as that has been done a thousand times over. You either believe it or you don't but I do believe that if it was ever positively proven false that belief in Bigfoot would fall like a house of cards. I also believe that the only way that will ever happen is for Gimlin to confess that it was a hoax and I also believe that will never happen. Why? From the article:

      "To Gimlin, walking into the conference was like entering a church. “It’s not a fairy tale to them. It’s serious business,” he says. “When I met those people down there, they accepted me with what you call open arms.”

      There, Gimlin spoke of Bigfoot for the first time in years. “There wasn’t a sound in the room while I was talking,” he says. “I thought, ‘I can’t really believe this. This is almost like seeing Bigfoot.’ God, I felt like I was 10 feet tall.”

      When he finished, the room rose to its feet.

      “They just stood up and applauded and applauded,” Gimlin says. “I thought, ‘Why have I gone 35 years through a bunch of ridicule?’”

      Gimlin appears at conventions across the country. He signs shirts and plaster foot casts, tells and retells the story of he and Patterson’s encounter. He is no stranger to standing ovations.

      “They want to talk to me, they want to tell me about their experience,” he says. “This turned my whole life around.”"

      It's obvious he is adored by the Bigfoot community and I now believe no amount of money could persuade him to confess IF it is a hoax. He undoubtedly feels special and realizes so many believe in his experience and he could never let them down. He seems like a nice guy and very accommodating but like I said - you either believe him or you don't.

      Just my opinion - nothing more.

      Delete
    12. Had the chance to "come clean" when his efforts at retaining rights to the footage were declined.

      He was offered $1M by documentary film producers to "come clean" and didn't bat an eyelid.

      Delete
    13. Oh... And Mr Curious, you're one of very few who come here and exchange ideas in a civil manner. The troll up top is a troll, nothing more.

      Delete
    14. Why would his wife threaten to divorce him if it was a real bigfoot film? Him and roger were scamming and she had had enough of it.

      Delete
    15. She threatened to divorce him because of the threats and unwanted attention they received. This is further evidence of someone who's actions are contrary to doing something to attain the opposite. For many years, Bob didn't want to discuss the footage with anyone.

      Delete
    16. She threatened to divorce him for telling lies...even to her and she couldn`t forgive that.

      Delete
    17. Yes lktomi I am aware of that. We have discussed it before. As I remember it was an impromptu offer made without any legalities performed so perhaps Gimlin was aware of that OR he could simply have been telling the truth as he knew it. I'm unaware of any formal contract ever being put before him offering such and as I said above I'm not sure it would sway him at this point in his life - he doesn't seem poor or unhappy with where he's at. As I said before you either believe him or you don't. For those of us who don't believe it's just hard to reconcile his word with the fact that all these years later we still have no proof of it's existence.

      Delete
    18. 9:08... Yes, plenty of people get divorced for lying, don't they? Man, you reek of someone who's never been in a physical relationship.

      Mr Curious... We don't know if any legalities were drawn up, but I would have expected him to take pause and have some body language indicative of someone potentially making many years worth of money, so as to not have to trounce around the country at his age, if he were hoaxing.

      Delete
    19. Curious, you answered your own question or speculation by your quoting of Gimlin:

      ‘Why have I gone 35 years through a bunch of ridicule?’”

      Due to the ridicule, Gimlin surely would have admitted the thing was a hoax sometime during those 35 years of attacks and hassles, in order to free himself of the attacks and hassles and live a more peaceful life.

      As he wasn't collecting an income from the PGF, he had nothing to lose and only to gain (ending the ridicule) by admitting hoaxing at some point during those 35 years. He also could have instigated a new income by admitting hoaxing.

      He didn't. He stood by the account and film despite 35 years of ridicule. That's the plain fact. And it's obvious why he has stood by the account and film.

      There is your answer, and really you answered your own question by quoting Gimlin. For 35 years and more, he opted for ridicule and a hassled life, rather than eliminating ridicule and freeing himself of the hassles.

      The answer is there. You said so yourself, but you didn't realize what you yourself had said. You answered yourself via Gimlin's words.

      Most people would opt for even a false admission of hoaxing, in order to end the ridicule and get on with their lives. It takes a serious conviction and strength of character to opt for the ridicule instead of freeing oneself of it.

      You answered yourself, by posting powerful evidence that Gimlin is telling the truth, without knowing that you had.

      Delete
    20. Gimlin is in this waaaay too deep to ever admit to a hoax. He has received money to appear at bigfoot conferences and on television. If he admitted to a hoax, not only would Gimlin be labeled the biggest liar and conman of the last 50 years, but people would also be going after him with lawyers.

      The multi-million dollar bigfoot industry largely rests on the PGF. There are many people who make a living with bigfoot (the Finding Bigfoot cast and crew is just one example). If Gimlin were to admit to a hoax, the bigfoot industry would suffer a severe blow (perhaps a death blow) and some people would lose their bread and butter.

      The fact is that the truth about the PGF will likely never be known. Personally, I think that it's a hoax that just happened to turn out better than Roger Patterson could ever have imagined or hoped for. As for Gimlin, who knows. He may be repeating a tall tale, or by now he may have actually talked his mind into believing it.

      Yes, I lean toward the PGF being a hoax, a great hoax, but I sincerely hope that I am wrong.

      Delete
    21. Perhaps you are right curiouser and curiouser but allow me to play devil's advocate. First we have only his word for the amount of ridicule he allegedly received. Maybe he felt there would be more shame in confessing that he took part in a hoax. There was no money being offered for a confession that I know of in those days. Perhaps he kept still in hopes of receiving the one-third share of the film's proceeds and after finally winning them was bound to keep quiet in order for them to remain in effect. He would still make a profit and not be exposed as a liar this way. Is he still receiving a share of the film's proceeds? I don't know.

      It's no smoking gun but I have always wondered why he refused to take a lie-detector test? As for strength of character this article by one Pete Williams challenges this:

      http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/gimlin-lied.htm

      So you see there is doubt. There has always been doubt. Powerful evidence can sometimes be in the mind of the beholder.

      Delete
    22. 11:37... Yes, it turned out so much better than what was expected, that it's managed to defy 47 years of the most complex and expensive of fur cloth techniques known to Hollywood. Pretty realistic. Hypotheticals are pretty pointless... If Gimlin were lying, someone would have sourced conclusive evidence of that by now. People like you like to push the idea that if Bob Gimlin were ever shown to be a hoaxer, that the "Bigfoot Industry" would collapse. There were people looking for "Bigfoot" way before 1967, there were sightings reports and there was even a massive pop culture interest in the Yeti. But any way... Wishing doesn't make a monkey suit materialise, sorry.

      Curious... Roger Patterson took a lie detectors test at the request of National Wildlife Magazie and past with flying colours.

      Delete
    23. " Hypotheticals are pretty pointless... If Gimlin were lying, someone would have sourced conclusive evidence of that by now. "

      That is some great irony. In the same phrase you start by saying hypotheticals are pointless and then provide a hypothetical to support your statement.

      Delete
    24. The former is a hypothetical scenario... The latter is a fact.

      Oops!

      Delete
    25. A fact? LOL. You have a strange notion of what a fact is, Joe. That is quite clearly not a fact.

      Delete
    26. No monkey suit despite test upon test = fact.

      Bob Gimlin would cause the "Bigfoot Industry" to collapse if he "confessed" = hypothetical

      Delete
    27. Hypotheticals are useless.

      You just can't help yourself, can you?

      Delete
    28. http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/animals/bob-gimlin-explains-why-releasing-his-bigfoot-footage-was-one-big-mistake-he-wished-he-could-undo/news-story/4dc66f0e7adaf352fc19a5fe0262cb6a

      Delete
  4. Underneath the photo:

    "...rosy behind..." ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm guessing it was supposed to be "story behind".

      Delete
    2. Either that or Gimlin has a rosy behind.

      Delete
    3. Or the packhorse behind Gimlin was named rosy.

      Delete
    4. Lots of rosy palms around here

      Delete
    5. EVERYONE KNOWS THAT IKTOMI IS THE
      "HEAD SICKO"!!,, ..IN THIS PATHECTIC PIT OF POT STONED PECKERHEAD'S,,,,,, "SHEESH"!

      Delete
    6. ^ mondo bizarro tries his luck at poetry and fails miserably . No surprise there lads

      Joe

      Delete
  5. ..Very good article with some previously unknown details. We still would like an account of any litigation based on the footage... Most importantly, nothing was said that improves the providence of the film.
    Everyone agrees that given the alleged timeline the film could not have been developed by conventional means. Does Bob
    know of any clandestine pornographers or rogue Kodak employees that contributed to the project? Does not say....
    I am fairly certain that Munns and Meldrum
    and other prominent advocates agree with Byrne's and Dahindren's assessment that the
    footage was obtained earlier than the weekend of the reveal:
    After getting the money shot, Roger contacted his wealthy brother-in-law(who was aware of the project) for advice on the best way to proceed("best" meaning maximize
    profits)..Naturally, they would first view
    the footage to see what they had..Finding
    the footage compelling enough to proceed they planned the sensational reveal, the details of which are well known...
    When pressed about the timeline on BFF, Bill Munn's attributes the problem to "human frailty". He is not talking about Yakima pornographers. He is referring to greed( I take no issue with Roger's motives;he was a treasure hunter and bigfoot was a lotto ticket..Its cool)Anyway, you can bet if the film can be proven genuine with almost mathematical certainty by some unforeseen advance in film analysis, then this scenario would be put forth in any academic setting where the results are announced...Advocates could never put forth this likely scenario at this point. Most embedded denialists and skeptics in the community would consider it a fatal blow to the credibility of Bob and Roger..Skepticism is usually useful to currently unregulated cryptozoology, but in
    this case it hinders getting the PGF debated
    in the mainstream: Not being able to give a full account of the circumstances of the filming, Meldrum and Munns and whoever else
    cannot present their papers and ideas to the mainstream. One most talk about the providence, but the providence of this evidence would bring the naysayers on full-throttle...

    EEG

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ..Pushing the filming back a few weeks(assuming legit footage) would not affect Titmus' casts or the Laverty photographs..The prints were visible a long time and it only rained the weekend of the reveal...
      ..I cant account for the weird indenting above..I didnt write it like that..Sorry anyway...

      Delete
    2. ...Hey Ikto-man..off to work..Have a good one...

      Delete
    3. ^ that would be a first for him

      Delete
    4. ^ and that would be a miracle for you

      Joe

      Delete
    5. ..Lol..Crickets..I never saw a discussion of this 'filmed earlier but still genuine' scenario..I was surprised to find when I returned from work that I didn't stimulate one,especially since my actual contention is that prominent advocates adhere to it...Oh well, maybe a better writer will one day get a debate going...

      Delete
  6. The greatest bigfoot story ever told is the LEGEND of the GREATEST BIGFOOT TRACKER IN THE WORLD!!!!!

    800 pounds and stands 8 foot tall!
    Rick Dyer shot him and watched him fall!

    BELIEVE!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PROVE THE TENT VIDEO IS FAKE!!!!!!

      Until you do, using your logic, it's REAL!

      Delete
    2. Are you for real? Rick Dyer is a con artist, a Satanist, and a loser.

      Delete
  7. When you're an ISF'er you lie, you pretend and you sock puppet. It's what you do.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The thing that makes me think that the PGF is fake is what looks like a hood line across "Patty's" back. If you look at the footage, especially the cleaned up Munns version, you can see what looks to be a hood line across the upper back, where the end of a pullover costume top ends.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Posterior from the shoulder, her scapula can be seen “winging” or becoming more prominent with the right arm swinging forwards, combined with the head turning back, away from the camera. This is a natural occurrence for the body, since the arm is attached to the triangular-shaped scapula, which is stabilized by several muscles. There is no bone-to-bone contact of the scapula/humerus unit with the rest of the body skeleton, with the exception of a small anterior pivot point provided by the clavicle. This allows for the significant mobility exhibited by the shoulder, and the protrusion of the medial border (“winging”) of the scapula. As with the above described triceps changes, this would be very difficult to replicate in a costume, and would not be a physical characteristic commonly known outside of the medical community."
      - O. Allen Guinn, III, M.D., F.A.C.S.

      Delete
    2. "Looks like a bloke in a suit" - andy white, todd disotel, bryan sykes etc etc

      Delete
    3. Andy, Todd, and Brian, are all Non-Researching Douchebags, tell em I said so!

      Delete
    4. I'm sure your work will make them question everything.

      Delete
    5. Especially when I called them Douchebags for ignoring the truth!

      Delete
    6. anyone in any walk of life that works and does a good job,a professional job lets the work speak for itself or others taught you and use your work as a benchmark...on the other hand if you have to proclaim your own work as great you are a failure. and you have zero support in your given field then you are either a complete failure or dr. squatch....sorry dr nothing personal but the truth speaks loudly over those whom live in vein

      MMG

      Delete
    7. Well they are modern humans so you can safely assume they are profoundly stupid, arrogant and blind.

      Delete
    8. What makes me think that the PGF is a hoax is the foot with no toes. As the "creature" is walking away near the end of the PGF, you can see its foot back, and in a still at this point in the film you can CLEARLY see that the front of the foot is squared with no toes. This points to a costume with foot bottoms that were not created with detail.

      Delete
    9. LOL. What makes me think that the PGF was hoax is, I don't know, the fact that it was done by a conman. The fact that it's obviously a guy in a suit to anyone who looks at it objectively. The fact that female primates don't have hairy breasts. The fact that female primates don't have sagittal crests. The fact that it's got a big static butt. The fact that the feet are obviously fake. The fact that the whole back story reeks of BS. The fact that...

      Delete
    10. I do let my proof speak for itself...Dmaker said the other day that I doctor up pics, what a complete idiot, he thinks I put up hundreds of doctored pics...LOL...HE CAN'T EVEN PIC "ONE"

      Delete
    11. "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

      http://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."

      Delete
    12. Also... Your buttcheek issues addressed on page 15 here;
      http://wwww.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf

      ... Leaving you butthurt. There are many segments of footage showing chimps and bononbos with hair on thier breasts, those two primates live in tropical an subtropical areas. Take the mountain gorilla as a prime example, it lives in the colder mountains has the thickest hair of the gorillas, would it not be logical, perhaps even expected for a ape livin' in the cooler climate of North America to have a thicker coat of hair than those other primates livin' in the tropics? If you Google 'Rare Mountain Gorilla Born in Congo' you'll find a nice National Geographic image of a female gorilla with interesting breasts.

      Delete
    13. Oh... And Patty doesn't have a sagittal crest, and got monkey suit??

      Delete
    14. People see what they want to see.
      The butt is static because it's part of a costume and not a real butt. The feet are fake because they are part of a costume and not real feet. And LOL, numerous bigfoot documentaries talk about "Patty" having a sagittal crest. Oh, and what about the fact that no primates have hairy breasts?
      Cue Iktomi with the see what you want to see answers.

      Delete
    15. Iktojo, I'd be more careful of using Guinn as a source. He does own a paranormal investigation service, after all. For me, that is a big red flag in someone who is supposed to be an impartial observer.

      https://trademarks.justia.com/owners/o-allen-guinn-iii-md-2363402/

      Delete
    16. Being a doctor does not preclude one from holding some wacky views. Look at Dr. Johnson.

      Delete
    17. Here is your "pioneering plastic surgeon" gushing about a ghost tour of Puerto Rico.

      ""You did not exaggerate what we would experience . . . Words cannot do justice to the event. It must be experienced to be appreciated . . . I would strongly encourage anyone with an interest in the paranormal to take the trip. Even if the interest in metaphysics is limited, the island is beautiful with the striking forts and historic landmarks in the city making the trip worthwhile . . . Thank you again for the opportunity."

      ~Dr. O. Allen Guinn III, from Kansas City, regarding the trip November of 2008"

      http://www.paranormalpuertorico.com/

      Delete
    18. Geez, I wonder why he was interested in commenting on the PGF for Meldrum?

      Delete
    19. Dmaker just destroyed Joerg worse than Portugal throttled Wales!

      Delete
    20. " Oh, and what about the fact that no primates have hairy breasts?"

      2:04, don't you know that Iktomi can source you a quote from his pioneering, ghost chasing, plastic surgeon?

      Delete
    21. Interesting article:

      http://www.outsideonline.com/2094936/bigfoot-profile

      Delete
    22. From the comments section:

      "to which I would add no DNA, and no definitive photographs in spite of literally millions of trail cams, cellphones, point and shoot cameras and "GoPros". Meanwhile, there are so many footprint hoaxers that that the only "Bigfoot professor" hardly bothers to examine reported "bigfoot" trackways. Instead, he follows the rubber chicken circuit of bigfoot "conventions", collecting big speaker fees from the dedicated believers, while citing badly done "studies" and decades-old casts of a variety of sizes, shapes and numbers of toes, many obtained by shady characters, while avoiding real research on the subject. The "canon" of historical bigfoot stories includes obvious tall tales told by old men, tabloid journalism and and misused tribal folklore. "Researchers" "investigate" 'reports" of what "witnesses" say, but never do psychological, substance, or perceptual testing, or background checks, on "witnesses." Those who claim these "encounters' are simply deemed "credible" by some imaginary and exceedingly loose standard known only to bigfoot believers. Profiteers take credulous folk on weekend "snipe hunts", where the powers of suggestion, sleep deprivation, Stockholm syndrome, normal woodsy phenomena, and a pinch of fakery are sufficient to convince the "marks."


      "Evidence", to the average believer, can include not only these "encounters" but almost any noise, broken tree limb, or animal or human just out of identification range. Out of their melange of "data" (none ever confirmed as "bigfoot" related) they construct, incredibly, pie in the sky theories of life expectancy, size, diet, migration, hunting strategies, communication, language, shelter, range, populations, and other physical, demographic and anthropological characteristics. It's just pseudoscience piled on top of superstition, ignorance, and exploitation. Literally hundreds of poorly written books have been published, recounting story after poorly documented story, and ranging into the realms of paranormal, romance, and even erotica. Meanwhile, reasonable publications attempting bring sanity to the subject and to explain the bigfoot phenomenon are "shouted down" by down-rating of these books at Amazon."

      Delete
    23. Wow! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall that, and none of it gets around to helping you explain away the one thing that causes you to chase me around every day of your life... THE EVIDENCE.

      Sorry Donald, but Guinn isn't looking for "ghosts and gouls" in this instance, he's applying his expert opinion on biological tissue. Dr. Guinn is board certified as a Plastic Surgeon by the American Board of Plastic Surgery. He is also a published author in both medical texts and journals, including articles on breast reduction techniques that he personally designed.

      Medical School
      Tufts University - School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
      General Surgery
      Fit*simons Army Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado
      University of Massachusetts, Worcester, Massachusetts
      Hand Surgery
      University of Connecticut, Hartford, Connecticut
      Plastic Surgery
      University of Missouri, Kansas City, Missouri
      Certifications
      American Board of Plastic Surgery
      Fellow American College of Surgeons

      ... I'm afraid your ad hominem doesn't work again.

      2:04... Unfortunately, you're not remotely qualified to counter the experts I've listed with an uneducated opinion. Oops!

      Delete
    24. Yeah, he's all that and a ghost chaser too. Don't forget to portray the full picture, now.

      Delete
    25. A ghost chaser who's board certified as a Plastic Surgeon by the American Board of Plastic Surgery, who's also a published author in both medical texts and journals, including articles on breast reduction techniques that he personally designed.

      Delete
    26. There have been 8,882 board certified plastic surgeons since 1937. About 6,500 of them are still active. So, you have one guy out of 6,500 that believes in ghosts and bigfoot.

      Big whoop.

      Delete
    27. In other words, 0.015384615384615% of board certified plastic surgeons believe in bigfoot and ghosts.

      Delete
    28. "Don't forget to portray the full picture, now." ha ha ha ha!!!

      You'll have 6,500 other sources to counter his opinion then, eh champ? A lot of people believe in "ghosts and gouls", everyone is welcome to their hobby. Unfortunately, ghosts are not his area of expertise that's the focus here, Don.

      Delete
    29. His ghost chasing hobby may not be in question here, but whenever I see paranormal belief and bigfoot in the same person, it raises certain red flags. It questions their credulity.

      Delete
    30. I wonder where the good doctor stands on Dogmen?

      Delete
    31. Ha ha ha!! Yes, I'm sure it does in the career pseudocseptic, but that's merely ad hominem unless you can counter what is actually being applied to the immediate subject matter. I wonder how many reputable people believe in ghosts? Ha ha!!

      Delete
    32. Do you think people would have the same respect for Meldrum if he proclaimed a belief in ghosts, dogmen, or paranormal in general?

      I doubt it.

      Delete
    33. You constant ad hom attack anyone who is a member of ISF. How is that any different?

      Delete
    34. Sorry, why bring up dogmen? There is in fact plenty of very intelligent people who believe in the paranormal, Donald... What someone chooses to believe it is irrelevant to what they can measure by their expert opinion and scentific means. In this instance, you have someone with all the credentials you usually celebrate delivering his opinion on the biological tissue of Patty. If you hadn't noticed... I've taken apart all the best ISF claims before highlighting their pseudosceptical ideals.

      Delete
    35. I've yet to see you take apart anything. That all takes place in your head, not in reality.

      Delete
    36. If you are so good at taking apart ISF claims, how is that you have never spent one second discussing claims with anyone at ISF? Why do you hide out here taking potshots at ISF members? Why is it that you don't have the confidence to actually go to ISF? Instead you are content to ramble on here and declare victory over people you are too frightened to even confront.

      Delete
    37. Ok Don! You take care now, yeah?

      Peace!!

      Delete
    38. Don... That's because some of them are over here trolling and pasting all the ISF's best prayers. There is nothing that the ISF can conjure that hasn't been addressed time and time and time again by not just me... But countless others. Special pleading 101.

      Laters!

      Delete
    39. LOL, ok. Run away now, scared little boy.

      Delete
    40. Yes, you are so confident in your abilities that you choose to argue with pasted comments here rather than show your cowardly face at ISF. You rail on and on about wanting intelligent discourse on this topic, yet you cling to this site and refuse to go where you would get more discussion than you could ever get here.

      Is it because you can't be a "Superfriend" at ISF? Your ego is so fragile, you wouldn't last two days over there.

      Delete
    41. donald, go play with your dolls please

      Joe

      Delete
    42. Angry Don only wants me over there so his friends can pitch in to give him a hand. He does require a "moderated forum to be able to debate", after all.

      Delete
  9. Ridiculous. Greatest story ever told? NOw they are comparing bigfoot with Christ. Will this crap never end? These bigfooters are insane morons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pseudoscepticism is a fundamental, quasi-religion.

      Delete
    2. No, actually you are a blind semi-aware fuckwit.

      Delete
    3. Ha ha ha ha!! Sorry it hurts, Fundie.

      Delete
  10. The Meeting:

    "Yeah we don't have to feature any actual bigfoot videos, we can just grab any old shit the usual suspects regurgitate onto YouTube. In fact, we can mix it up a little with other non-sighting type stuff like UFO reports with no actual UFOs visible and Jane Fonda style workout videos made by the most sweaty and rotund of the bigfoot researchers. Its not about quality content, its about ANY content."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "But what if the viewers reject the crap we put up? What if they stop showing up?"

      "Meh don't worry about it. The retard set will hit any clickbait we publish. Total non-issue. If you post it they will come."

      "Oh"

      Delete
    2. Its not about the TRUTH, it's about AMBIGUITY....That's what draws the hits.
      It also seems to be about stupidity. .I mean who in the world rides a quad around, and is going to get a Bigfoot on video...who does workout videos instead of Bigfoot Research??

      Delete
    3. Who pans around a camera and lets their viewers pick out the "monsters" that they see?

      Delete
    4. Who in the world sees blue bags as evidence of Bigfoot?

      Delete
    5. Come on now, a blue bag next to the freeway? What else could it possibly be other than a bigfoot? Surely, there is no other reasonable explanation. LOL

      Delete
    6. You should have seen the video where he blamed Bigfoot for bending pieces of a freeway bridge.

      Delete
    7. DS is either a hoaxer or certifiable. There is no in between. I'm going with certifiable. I sincerely wish that he seeks the professional help that he so clearly, and desperately, needs.

      Bigfootery is rife with those in need of mental health treatment. DS is on the top of that list.

      Delete
    8. To get an inkling of the dementia that DS suffers from, watch this movie:

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1185384/

      Delete
    9. looks like someone meant to sign in as Anon again.

      Delete
    10. Not at all, why would you think that? I will never understand why you and Iktomi claim comments that I have no problem making must somehow be me anon. Paranoid much?

      Delete
    11. I would say very paranoid.

      Delete
    12. Because they do it, they assume everyone else does.

      Delete
    13. Notice Don's "still confused" comments, the exact same circular reasoning & cart before the horse logic he uses in the link below? I used this thread of comments to make fun of him with some of my academic friends;
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/can-you-guess-where-this-photo-was-taken.html

      ... That was on the 8th of August 2014. He does not appear in any BFE comment sections (I can source this if you like though it will take me a little while), until the 11th of August 2014 where he uses the exact same "still confused" comments as a signature;
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/family-has-bigfoot-encounter-while.html

      ... Now anyone can read for themselves, though nobody in their right minds would believe that he doesn't post anon anyway.
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-max=2014-08-09T00:00:00-07:00&max-results=20&start=5280&by-date=false


      dMaKeRWednesday, June 1, 2016 at 9:51:00 AM PDT
      But when the reports from those areas are brought up, you find yourself in a predicament, don't you Joey?

      ... And on the same comment section...

      AnonymousWednesday, June 1, 2016 at 7:13:00 AM PDT
      I imagine Joe watched this show and had a total meltdown. When are you going to finally face the overwhelming lack of Bigfoot evidence and move on Joey?
      https://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/the-yeti-is-put-to-test-again.html?m=0

      Delete
    14. Wow. Iktomi is the definition of obsessed.

      Delete
    15. I was challenged to source evidence... I did.

      Delete
  11. Hey Iktomi, if you're so convinced that Bigfoot exist, why don't you come to the states and find one? Why don't you put your money and time where your mouth is?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How many Bigfoots have you observed, Iktomi's Fluff Girl?

      Delete
    2. 5:53... Yes, I'll come and stay at yours and we can both go out Squatchin' together?

      Delete
  12. Iktomi can stay at a squatch habitation site in a squatch made shelter.

    ReplyDelete