Tuesday, February 6, 2018

Man Builds Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot Suit


A costume maker creates what he believes is a replica to the Patterson Gimlin bigfoot. 

90 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. It's all over for Bill Munns.

      The munns report is finally in the shitter where in belongs

      Delete
  2. Bollocks !!!!!!!!!!!
    Another pillock trying to recreate the PGF which will end in failure once again. silly wabbit , PGF is real so go ahead and waste your time building a suit that will look dreadfully awkward
    cheers anyways

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
  3. I like how this guys automatically assumes that the PGF bigfoot was a costume.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you don't field research, assumption is all you have. You don't have to recreate patty, all you have to do is field research, and you'll know real quick Patty is a FAKE!
      Ikduumy claims the horses masked Patterson & Gimlin's scent, that's hilarious! Hunters mask their scent more than a person on a LOUD HORSE, HELLO!! You don't think Patty saw, heard, of smelled the Horses? They snuck up on her right, LOL!!!! No horse or researcher has been able to get one moving, or on film, or of the quality of Patty since 1967, that's preposterous! These creatures Blur the camera, they aren't like Patty, and Fraud Standing's Fake's.

      Delete
    2. You see, this new approach by Bruce is not only to plead for favour with his little chum Stuey (his only little chum that he doesn’t realise publishes the harshest scrutiny against him when he’s not egging him on)... is not only because I’ve dismantled every last angle of Brucey‘s “research” and he needs to retaliate by attacking what he perceives is “my best angle”... but because it’s all part of his typical ad hoc fantasy approach to dismiss everything that doesn’t affiliate with his blurry pareidolia. Desperately pathetic.

      Not only did he debunk his own drivel the other day (not that there was anything to debunk), by finally approaching one of this pareidolia tree stumps to which it didn’t move (claiming that it was a “tree carving” HAAAAAAA!!!!!!) but he believes that footprint evidence (which is fundamental to the field research he claims to master), is bunk because he can’t find a single footprint... But he now believes that Patty is fake because she does not blur in the lens. Everything that equates to genuine research, the very best products of hard work in the last 60 is worthless because it does not fit Bruce’s fantasy where he runs around taking photographs of trees on his local footpath and then looks for pareidolia in stills afterwards. This blog genuinely attracts the craziest of people.

      And to Roger and Bob on horses. It is more than likely that Roger Patterson’s footage was the product of masked scent, due to the nature of how the sand bar was approached. Bruve, only the other claimed that nobody is seeing the same description of creature that’s in the Patterson Gimlim footage. Seriously. He quite simply, very obviously has watched one episode of Monster Quest and decided to go play monsters in the woods. He clearly isn’t aware that there are three databases of modern reports that attest to exactly the same descriptions as Patty. He is not aware that “bipedal gorillas” is what has been widely used to describe these hominins for the past 150 years. Not only had Patty left physical evidence behind that is not only found in another place in the States many years later... But was also found in another continent decades later, with different foot falls and impressions attesting to an actual biological foot. Every time someone comes into contact with a hominin, one or both parties are equalled in enough intelligence to retreat from the situation... relegating the event to an anecdote rather than what many would perceive as an official discovery, classification, etc. What Patty does in that footage, the circumstances that Roger comes across Patty, is repeated in INUMMERABLE reports from every reliable pillar of modern society. Patty has nothing but consistency in the way she behaves.

      Bruce, your pathetic ad hoc fantasy knows no bounds. You are in such a need to push your drivel that you expect people to believe that because Patty doesn’t have comparative pareidolia, that decades of experts’ opinion about her proportions & biological tissue is somehow meaningless. Where do you get these egocentric delusions from Bruce? Why don’t you explain how in a biological sense, something can allegedly turn “inanimate”? Please Bruce, enlighten me.

      Delete
    3. DS! make your mind up.You said Patty was real and didn't blur the camera because it was old xx

      Delete
    4. DR. SQUATCH - BEST BIGFOOT & DOGMAN EVIDENCEFriday, March 10, 2017 at 7:11:00 AM PST
      Yes, extremely jealous! Always a character attack, to somehow attempt to undermine my evidence, lol!

      Yes, Patty is real, imho. She was moving, out in the open, and not blurry. The better the camera, the more blurry they will be, i believe this was shot in analog, not digital. Whatever these creatures are touching, they can replicate. If moving, they do not have anything to replicate, that's mainly why they won't budge, and they don't have to. I believe the Horses and guns freaked patty out, and she had no choice but to get up and leave, probably to get the young one's. I have a pic of a creature in the tree, that has 3 similarities to Patty! No way they could have faked this! I notice a lot of the Bigfoot, have a white part on their lower lips. They also have a patch of fur above their ears, and a pronounced jaw line/bone, almost looks like they have a side chew in. Here's the 3 similarities i found.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC3WKVTpxo8

      Delete
    5. Bruce “ad hoc” Kiray.

      Don’t you know that he researches, PIB?

      (Creased)

      Delete
    6. Only an admin could go back and find something i said from 2017, really PIB?

      Epic Dummy meltdown above, I didn't even bother reading most of the nonsense.

      7:45, I did, like most think Patty was real. It took a few years to see the reality of Patty, and the fake that she is. She's absolutely incredible looking, but 100% a fake! Everyone who studied her has never been in the woods, not one shred of Bigfoot evidence, yet Ikduumy believes them, so pathetic! Yeah, biological & proportions are great, on a FAKE!

      Ikdummy, I have a bunch of prints, and you know it, i've posted them before.

      You are in such a need to push your drivel that you expect people to believe that because Patty doesn’t have comparative pareidolia, that decades of experts’ opinion about her proportions & biological tissue is somehow meaningless.
      REALLY IKDUMMY? First off, If anything i'm trying to get the truth out, and you, who say you believe, are arguing with the truth, because you don't research! That is so beyond pathetic! Who are these "EXPERTS" you claim? Trying to convince the public patty is real, while ignoring what's really in the woods! Why don't these EXPERTS have anything to compare Patty to??? Because she's a FAKE, that's why!

      You site all these phony experts research on a fake! The Armchair researchers, and the naive, like Ikdummy, don't know any better. You're wasting your miserable life on a hoax, and the ONLY reason you can't see it, is because you don't research!

      END OF STORY!

      Delete
    7. Bruce has no concept of reality . Bruce, for god's sake please stop ingesting the special mushrooms you find at the base of those trees, it's making you hallucinate something awful
      Cheers

      Joe

      Delete
    8. LOL DS.You don't need to be admin you just need Google xx

      Delete
    9. You don’t research, Bruce. You have no credentials to tell people if they have conducted proper research, or who has or hasn’t provided evidence. You take videos of brush and then look for pareidolia in stills of that footage. I have never ever seen any footprint evidence from you, you are delusional. Did you even read any of my comment up top Bruce? Or do you get too flustered to read things properly and just reel off your usual crud? There is physical evidence from Patty that is being published in journals. “She's absolutely incredible looking, but 100% a fake!”... so not only do you acknowledge that “she” is likely real by referencing her gender, but she somehow looks so “incredible” that she HAS to be fake? Welcome to logic time; Bruce Kiray style!

      So all the experts I reference are clueless? I got ya. It doesn’t matter that not one person on the planet, as well as those experts have ever seen Lionmen, Bearmen, Barkmen, Goatmen, Monsters with teeth, Birdmen, “Black Jokers”, Shadow families, Sentinels, Mini Godzillas, Dogsquatches or Witches (with “claw hands”). Or that nobody has any reason to believe someone like you who has nothing but blurry images of trees that show none of the aforementioned, and who believes that a biological entity can turn inanimate. I guess we’re all the same evil admins that ignored your pleads for publishing your Pokemon stills, because nobody in their right minds could be able to resist your groundbreaking field research, eh Bruce? Oh, and you never explained how in a biological sense, something can allegedly turn “inanimate”?

      Got monkey suit, Bruce?

      Delete
    10. Patterson or Gimlin know where the suit is.
      Just like Fraud Standing, Patterson nor Gimlin have any proof before or after, they just happen to get the shot of a lifetime, yeah right!

      And I guess Patty's a special kind of Stupid, the only Bigfoot that can't see people or horses coming, LOL!!

      Show me which EXPERT that looked at Patty has Bigfoot evidence???

      Look at my Playlists Ikdummy, several Footprints!

      When i started this Ikdummy, I was looking for a PATTY type creature.
      THE LAST THING I THOUGHT I WOULD SEE WERE DOGS, MONKEY'S, ETC again, never thought i would see anything of the sort! Inanimate, yeah, i would tell you that you were nuts!
      All i do is film, and report what I see. I don't have some agenda to disprove Patty, this is just what I see, and no one puts the time in that i do, this is a 100% fact! So he who puts all the time in knows, and he who puts ZERO TIME into this is clueless.
      END OF STORY IKDUMMY!

      Delete
    11. Bruce is having an epic meltdown type of day today. it would be good if someone lay a big slice of cheese on top of him
      You ask which experts claim Patty is real. Well off the top of my head i can name Grover Krantz, Dimitri Bayanov and of course Jeff Meldrum to name a few. Tell me Bruce, which experts do you know that back your tree bark photos as real ? Yeah, you can't bloody name one !
      Go back to cooking school bro

      Joe

      Delete
    12. Argh right... More great logic. So the PGF is fake because two people set out to accomplish something and did? Just like pseudosceptics who discredit people for finding what they set out to look for. Patty is no different to the tens of thousands of circumstances where she has been observed hunting, looking for grubs, chillin... because like all intelligent creatures on the planet, they a subsceptible to mistakes. If you but actually start with the basics of researching this subject and read the plethora of reports that are available on the internet, you’d of course know this. Meldrum and Bundernagle are two names that immediately come to mind, and two people who have genuinely contributed to this subject. These people have had lengthy professional careers transcending this subject, and have studied physical evidence first hand in the field.

      You have no physical evidence, whatsoever. Nothing. And I’m not giving attention whores like you any YouTube hits. I strongly advise everyone else do the same unless they want a laugh. And you don’t see anything Bruce... You can’t even provide first hand testimony of what you are allegedly documenting. You are not even a witness to your Pokemon in the flesh. Oh... how lucky I am that you don’t have an agenda to disprove Patty. Phew.

      Don’t you know Bruce researches?

      Delete
    13. Bruce does not research and he doesn't surf
      Hey Bruce, here's some more names of experts who think the PGF is real :
      Dmitri Donskoy [Chief of the Chair of Biomechanics at the USSR Central Institute of Physical Culture, Moscow]
      D. W. Grieve [Reader in Biomechanics, Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine, London]
      ürgen Konczak [associate professor in the School of Kinesiology and director of the Human Sensorimotor Control Laboraties at Minnesota University]
      David Daegling [associate professor of anthropology at Yale University]
      Daniel Schmitt [assistant professor in the Department of Anthropology, Duke University Medical Center]
      As you can see they do have credentials that can back up the fact they are knowledgeable in the subject. So Bruce, we are still waiting for the name of even one expert who thinks your tree bark pics of lionmen and goatmen have any credibility ?
      and please don't name Carla or Nan as experts, haha

      Joe

      Delete
    14. ^^ Please contact any of them, tell them i said they are raving idiots, who don't research, and i would like to have an open debate with any of them live, for all to see. Every one of them is a total joke!

      Meldrum and Bundernagle are two names that immediately come to mind, and two people who have genuinely contributed to this subject.
      YEAH, TWO DING DONGS WHO HAVE NEVER FIELD RESEARCHED!! MELDRUM EVEN HAS A FIELD RESEARCH GUIDE, FOR DING DONGS WHO FOLLOW HIS BLINDNESS!

      "You have no physical evidence, whatsoever. Nothing."
      IKDUMMY JUST PROVED HE'S A NOTHING BUT A TROLL.....I HAVE MORE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT ANY RESEARCHER EVER WILL, I HAVE MORE PROOF, AND MORE TIME SPENT THAT ALL RESEARCHERS COMBINED.....100% FACT!

      PATTY IS A TOTAL FAKE!

      Delete
    15. For starters, they wouldn’t know who you are. Secondly, I’m certain if someone explained to them that a born again chiropractor who believes he’s photographing inanimate lionmen, they’d roll their eyes and know that you’re just one of a long line of crazies that this subject attracts.

      "In 1996 I was afforded the opportunity to personally examine and cast a series of footprints in Washington State. Then again in 1997, while conducting fieldwork in northern California, I examined several examples of fresh tracks. As a result of these experiences, I have commenced assembling examples of footprints as part of a comprehensive review and study of this material. A large number of casts are now available in my lab and some intriguing preliminary results are already evident."
      - Dr Jeff Meldrum

      If I had the time I’d also reference where Binderz cast tracks that were on his desk for many, many years. You don’t have any physical evidence. You don’t have one single example. Please... put one link here to where you have found a track impression. You are in this little make believe land where you think a new world audience visit these comment sections daily and absorb your crud like it’s legit. The similarities in you and Stuey are f’n staggering.

      Got monkey suit?

      Delete
    16. Tick tock Bruce, tick tock. We are still waiting for you to name one expert who endorses your photos of lionmen and goatmen , bark baby and witch with claw and all the other nonsense you claim to be real. Just one name of an expert , now that can't be too hard if your evidence is legit can it ?
      Face it Bruce, you are a fraud of the highest degree . You can't name one expert because your evidence is total BOLLOCKS !
      Drops the mic
      cheers

      Joe

      Delete
    17. Well, it looks like Bruce can't come up with even one experts name that endorses his evidents
      BUSTED ! DS, you are such a fraud , please go away
      *CREASED*

      Joe

      Delete
    18. Gee whiz, looks like Dr. Squatch isn't being a good christian with all his name calling and misbehavior.
      "Ephesians 4:32
      Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you."

      Delete
  4. I tell ya i sold the original suit to Patterson !
    He later emailed me saying he modified it because he was gettin' his buddy Bob Hieronimus to wear it but his butt wasn't big enough so they padded it because he wanted to make the butt look bootylicious .
    if you don't believe me that's ok . I really can't show you any proof because i'm now a ghost and old receipts just fall out of my hands

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Argh yes. Phillip Morris, who many years later on Gte Long’s payroll had to hire a gorilla costume maker to make something that looked nothing like Patty. Why would the greatest SFX expert in 150 years need to do that?

      http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-76NC4mTIqcM/UZZKtq-3llI/AAAAAAAALUs/FZYE4Bf0kRo/s1600/pm-bobh-2005-recreation_fail-big-02.jpg

      There is nobody left who pushes this embarrassment anymore. Except Stuey, with his hand in his shorts, giggling at his desktop. Yuck!

      Delete
    2. Triggered because someone got suit,tee hee^

      Delete
    3. Yes Stuey, I’m so “triggered” because Morris contributed to proving Patty was real.

      How will I ever cope.

      Delete
    4. Plenty of suits... it’s finding one that looks something like Patty is what’s relevant.

      Lonely boy.

      Delete
    5. Oh look lonely boy! You inadvertently finally FOUND someone who made a living off “Bigfoot”! There is money to made from “Bigfoot” after all... by hoaxing a hoax!
      “After Morris got publicity for his Bigfoot claims, the business grew. The basement operation moved to a small shop, then to a retail store on Monroe Road and a 300,000-square-foot distribution center in University Research Park.”
      http://www.cryptozoonews.com/morris-obit/

      The source goes on to read...
      “BTW, the reason Roger Knights and I called it a “tale of two suits” is because besides the alleged Morris gorilla suit that was supposedly used for the Bigfoot in the Patterson-Gimlin footage, a sewn horse hide skin was said to be used. That both sources for the costume was in Greg Long’s book without a proofreader catching that caused confusion in the logical of the claims. Knights’ wrote of this thread, thusly:

      Bob Heironimus (BH) Wasn’t Queen Kong (the Bigfoot in the 1967 Patterson film)…

      …BH’s initial description of the suit that he wore, supposedly made by Patterson, is very different from the suit he later agreed that he wore, supposedly supplied by costume-maker Philip Morris. BH described the suit he thought Patterson had made as having a zipperless upper torso part that BH donned like putting on a T-shirt…. At Bluff Creek he put on “the top”. Asked about the “bottom portion,” he guessed it was cinched with a drawstring. Morris made a unibody-type union suit that zipped up the back and into which one stepped. It had no torso part or top like Patterson’s (supposed) top-and-trousers affair. This difference between them was one he couldn’t possibly have mistaken or forgotten.

      And there were other differences that would have been hard to miss, such as the pronounced difference in hand-feel between heavy, supple, rubbery horsehide and the light, mesh-fabric-backed Dynel in Morris’s. There might be an innocent explanation for BH’s changing his story to accommodate Long’s Morris-Suit theory–but it’s hard to think of one.

      Plus…
      BH was not measured for a custom-fitted suit. And the Morris’s gorilla suit, like all off-the-peg ape-suits, would fit a wearer loosely, even if it had been custom-tailored to the wearer. (E.g., in the movie Harry and the Hendersons, “Harry” has trouser-legs: a pair of uniformly tapering tubes.) Queen Kong, OTOH, has a well-defined body: a butt crack (in the last frames), bulging thunder thighs, mobile kneecap, shapely calf, visible tendons and hamstrings, shoulder blades, realistic biceps, quivering flesh, non-uniform hair color and length, etc., all features missing from Hollywood ape-films.”

      Delete
    6. ^^^^^ ALL OF THIS CRAP ABOUT A SUIT IS IRRELEVANT!!! PATTY IS A FAKE, OR SHE WOULD BE REPEATABLE!!!!!!!! NO BIGFOOT RESEARCHERS SEE ANYTHING LIKE THIS WHATSOEVER!!!

      Delete
    7. I know avatar self , someone is really upset on this recreation, got suit? Yep

      Delete
    8. “No researchers see anything like Patty”. Is there anything that I really need to say to that?

      You are now asserting that Patty is fake, and the one thing you need to substantiate that is now irrelevant? This coming from the same person that believes that a little yellow blur in two different images is proof of lionmen from another planet? Got ya Bruce. Here we go, a piece of footage that shows the exact specimen as Patty;

      https://youtu.be/J-qqSusfE_Y

      Go learn something you imbecile.

      Delete
    9. Got suit? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha , that suit looks familiar ,ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha tee hee....got suit? Yep

      Delete
    10. ALL CAPS MELTDOWNS DO NOT MAKE WHAT YOU ARE SPEWING ANYTHING OTHER THAN DRIVEL. DS PLEASE TRY TO REFRAIN FROM ANYMORE ALL CAPS TIRADES.

      Delete
    11. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    12. Roger Knights 26 reasons. Here we go Stuey...

      https://youtu.be/iUIMYuc5L9Q

      Your pervy little quest for attention is simply educating someone somewhere about the truth behind the PGF. Great little link.

      Delete
    13. YouTube and cameras behind trees :(, got suit? Oooh there's one

      Delete
    14. Yes, YouTube. So far I’ve used it too many times to count to make you look like an idiot. And Patty wasn’t filmed behind trees... You must be confused.

      Delete
    15. The "research" DS presents completely disappears if trees are removed from the equation.

      Delete
    16. No, my research completely disappears in residential areas! And Joe thinks the trees near homes are now not wild trees....special kind of stupid!
      Ikdummy's research is non existent!

      Delete
    17. 11:17, I HAVE TO TYPE IN ALL CAPS FOR IKDUMMY, HIS PATHETIC LIFE EVOLES AROUND A FAKE, AND HE'S TOO DUMB TO SEE IT, BECAUSE HE DOESN'T RESEARCH!!

      Delete
    18. Ikdummy at 11:05, where's this person's proof before and after this???
      Clear Monkey, not one of these Cryptids, but since you armchair research, yeah, fooled again!

      You would be dumb enough to believe this is a Bigfoot.

      Delete
    19. This suit has crushed Iktomi's world, see how he ran here to try to stop any mention of it, so sweet to see a troll getting trolled

      Delete
    20. Same cut out eyes in the above costume as the P/G hoax. It's funny how P/G were able to fool so many people, even to this day.

      I scanned over this thread's comments quickly I think there still are people that believe in Bigfoot. 2018, folks!

      Delete
    21. No DS. You just stop looking for pareidolia when you’re in residential areas. Try it, bet you can find lionmen in people’s gardens if you try hard enough. The link in 11:05 is a piece of amateur footage from Russia. Just like people from every day walks of life film all sorts of things from day to day... these just so happened to be lucky enough to catch a glimpse of the same species of Patty whilst they had a camera. They don’t have to have a YouTube channel self-proclaiming to be researchers. That’s our twisted take on how things should be credible. Just look what that approach has done for you. You’re a sick parody of everything that’s wrong with this subject. Every day people don’t need “proof”, DS euphumism for wild claims. Your claims are not proof of anything you allegedly document Bruce. Your words on a blog don’t make your fantasy real. I’m sorry, did you claim that the subject in that footage is a “clear monkey”? Just trying to clarify.

      And Stuey. If you actually compare the mask up top with a side profile of Patty, you’ll notice that Patty’s face is almost completely flat. This is something the dude up top clearly wasn’t aware of, and proof that he really doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Just the side profile frame of Patty obliterates any suggestion that the mask up top is accurate. That’s not even considering the materials he’s used which are likely those not in production in 1967. And that’s not even considering the rest of the “suit” that can’t be replicated with any known fur cloth technique known to any SFX expert on the planet.

      What’s not hard to believe, is that there plenty are old social degenerates still looking for a purpose, for some self esteem after their quest for cyber community got obliterated by basic common sense. People like you Stuey, of the JREF special pleading that the Bigfoot legend began with the PGF, which is a lie, and that there is no other evidence to substantiate this legend, which is another lie. You think that if you use all the most readily accessible misinformation about the PGF (no matter how many times it’s destroyed) you debunk the subject and can rest being assured that you’ve done something with your existence. Until people like me came along and took away your cyber playground.

      Shut up and find a god damn magic monkey suit.

      Delete
    22. Here we go, Einstein;

      https://i.ytimg.com/vi/aRtP27ByatM/hqdefault.jpg

      Delete
    23. The cut-out eyes are more noticeable in the P/G mask but it was still a good costume. Run this new costume through 16mm grain and the new costume would be much better than P/G but not as historic. Best hoax ever was P/G.

      Delete
    24. You won’t find a single pseudosceptic endorsing any notion of clearly visible cut-out eyes on the PGF subject, Stuey. And to suggest that is to fly in the face of your 8 year assertion that the footage is too blurry for any detail.

      Which one is it Stuey?

      Oh... and I went through the entire 4.5 minutes of the video up top. There is no costume. Just a mask. Did you not watch the source you’re harping on about again Stuey? You’re making a nasty little habit of this, aren’t you?

      Delete
    25. Clearly visible cut-out eyes on the P/G mask has been discussed often. It's hardly a new element of the P/G hoax. The prank is 51 years old, 1967, not 2010.

      In the video above, the cut out holes are in the mask. There is no additional costume to go with that mask like there was in the Patterson and Gimlin Bigfoot Hoax.

      Delete
    26. Yes, it’s been “discussed often”. Just like Bruce and his “footprint evidence”. Whatever is written here is your entire universe, right? You nerds spend way too much time on the internet. You have nobody to slap sense into you in physical reality so you believe everything that’s typed by your fat fingers in your cyber-realities.

      You never answered the question Stuey... Is Patty too blurry for detail or are you suddenly now able to see clear cut-out holes that nobody else can see? Maybe this is like the “zippers” that you can still see regardless of the footage being “too blurry”? This is ad hoc week remember... your contradictions are an exception.

      “There is no additional costume to go with that mask [up top]...” yet previously, “Run this new costume through 16mm grain and the new costume would be much better than P/G.” Are you confused Stuey? Did you actually watch the video Stuey? Drunk again??

      Delete
    27. I haven't been by in a while. Can someone update me? When did Iktomi and Dr. Squatch become mortal enemies?

      Delete
    28. P/G is very grainy. If The Last Jedi were that grainy, you'd complain. However, you can still tell it has big dark mask eye hole outlines around the eyes. It's an obvious mask even with heavy film grain. The best hoax ever though IMHO.

      Delete
    29. You’re not answering the question Stuey... Is Patty too blurry for detail or are you suddenly now able to see clear cut-out holes that nobody else can see? Maybe this is like the “zippers” that you can still see regardless of the footage being “too blurry”? Does this mean that 8 years of asserting that the PGF is too blurry is now thrown down the toilet? Please tell me oh have some level of confidence in your assertions?

      Delete
    30. So just as you suddenly have no confidence in your 8 year assertion that the footage is too blurry for any worthy detail... you expect people to believe you have confidence that the “mask” now has cut-out holes that can be “clearly seen”, even though nobody else claims the same? What a clever person you are. Here we go Stuey... Evidence that the subject’s mouth in the footage opens;
      https://youtu.be/h8apcmQJ47s

      And here we go again, if you forward to 4.5 minutes here;
      https://youtu.be/usNW2WW6rbw

      ... Frame 362, we don’t see cut-out holes. We see an actual eye. So tell me Stuey, do you actually know what you’re talking about? Or are you such an impossibly lonely old soul that you need any level of company, no matter how much that company is detrimental to your self-esteem?

      Delete
    31. P/G is very grainy. Both grainy and blurry photos are less clear but not the same thing. I can say "grainy" a million times and the troll will come back with blurry. Oh, well.

      Delete
    32. No, no Stuey... this is what YOU have claimed for the past 8 years. I could cut & paste hundreds of comments here now, to make you look just as much of an ad hoc mentalist as the chiropractor. I have published a link to your “grainy” footage in the comment above yours. You’ll notice the link obliterated your new ad hoc drivel rather comprehensively.

      Goodnight.

      Delete
    33. 8 years and no proof of Bigfoot:(

      Delete
    34. The P/G hoax was grainy footage. That's undeniable.

      Delete
    35. Stuey is in love with Iktomi

      Can't stop thinking about him

      LOL

      MMC

      Delete
    36. Take away a man’s religion and that’s kind of what happens. He’s got plenty of reason to worry about me 24/7.

      Delete
  5. Replies
    1. Trigger? LOL!

      http://www.happytrails.org/_images/trigger/01-sm-Illustration%20Photo.jpg

      Delete
    2. My 3 legged queen, may I kiss your Adams Apple?

      MMC

      Delete
  6. Hello Iktomi. I haven't been on here in forever. When did you and Dr. Squatch become enemies?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When I realized I had....8 years and no proof of Bigfoot:(

      Delete
    2. Um, I was addressing the real Iktomi, thank you.

      Delete
    3. Um, I am the real Iktomi , I like testicles , see?

      Delete
    4. Hello BS.

      DS started strangely turning on people who weren’t talking about him 24/7. One by one he started suddenly attacking enthusiasts on here if they had a positive opinion on any of the researchers who are published by the admin. For me. One day I spoke positively about Kelly Shaw and he lashed out. It was very strange. This is likely because 1) Matt refuses to publish his images, 2) he’s an attention whore and egomaniac who heavily relies on this subject for purpose, and 3) because he’s seen how trolls get attention around here and he knows comment sections can now be somewhat about him by trolling people, whereas before he was just ignored and felt a little bit sorry for. He has a YouTube channel remember and it doesn’t matter who hits his videos, even if they laugh at him or wonder why they wasted their time... so you’ll notice he makes wild claims like he’s got footprint evidence and tens of thousands of images of Bigfoot. None of this is remotely true of course. The attacks he’s published here over the past year has been vile considering his mascarades as a Christian, such as homophobia and insults about disabled people and his delusions about what he’s taking photos of are a clear case of severe mental health. Either that, or he’s a troll that’s willing to go the extra mile... which kind of makes sense, since he had no real reason to turn on enthusiasts. This could be perceived as him simply reverting back to his usual anonymous attacks because nobody fell for his hoaxing. He could be a sick troll’s parody of what he believes is the subject of “Bigfoot”.

      That’s about it, basically. Hope you are well.

      Delete
    5. It will be awesome if the Patterson family releases the original costume. If they do Philip Morris should remake it with the alterations Patterson made to the 1960s version. It fun to see that people still fall for the 1967 hoax.

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

      Delete
    7. Journal of Scienti c Exploration, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 356–374, 2016 0892-3310/16

      “This action of the sasquatch foot, as it correlates to these distinctive footprints, is evident and observable in the Patterson-Gimlin film subject. The elevation of the heel, while flexed at the midfoot, concentrates pressure beneath the forefoot. Under appropriate conditions of gait and substrate, this may occasionally produce the distinctive pressure ridge evident in the Titmus cast and other examples (Meldrum 2007). The observable subtleties of correlated form and function within a distinct biomechanical context make this film and associated footprints render the cliché adage “Oh, that’s just a man in a fur suit” rather vacuous.

      This interpretive model of the sasquatch foot function received dramatic corroboration during a visit to China’s Shennongjia Nature Reserve, in Hubei province. It was there that in 1995, a park ranger, Mr. Yuan Yuhao, claimed to have witnessed an upright, hair-covered hominoid, a yeren (Chinese—wildman) while patrolling within the park (Meldrum & Zhou 2012). He was climbing a slope near the head of a valley at an elevation of approximately 2100 m. The site, which I inspected, is a mosaic of fir forest and sedge meadows, not unlike the Rocky Mountain habitat I am so familiar with. Yuan observed the yeren through binoculars at a distance of approximately 500 m. It was covered in reddish brown hair, reclining, and sunning itself on the exposed facing slope. When Yuan called out to it, it returned his gaze. Instead of the expected snout and prick ears atop its head, he described a flat face. Furthermore, it arose and walked away bipedally into the nearby tree line. Yuan estimated its height at 2.3 m. He subsequently tracked the creature and cast a clear pair of its footprints on the banks of a spring.

      The casts measure approximately 38 cm in length, 16.5 cm across the forefoot, and 10 cm across the heel. A distinct midtarsal pressure ridge indicates a significant degree of flexibility in the midfoot (Figure 5, top). Presumably the right and left footprints were left as the yeren squatted beside the spring to drink. This action apparently elevated the hindfoot, concentrating pressure beneath the forefoot distal to the transverse tarsal joint. The plasticity of the moist bare soil resulted in a pressure ridge proximal to the transverse tarsal joint. The deepest points on the cast lie just distal to the pressure ridge, apparently beneath the talonavicular joint medially, and to a lesser degree beneath the cuboid laterally. These two points of concentrated plantar pressure lend a distinctive appearance to the proximal edge of the forefoot ahead of the transverse pressure ridge. The margin is marked by a double convexity. In all distinguishing characteristics the casts resemble those of North American sasquatch footprints, especially those recovered at the Patterson-Gimlin film site. This resemblance not only substantiates the model of foot form and function, but indicates a circum- Pacific distribution to this form of relict hominoid, with its likely origin in Asia (Meldrum 2006).

      Another example to further demonstrate this remarkable consistency of foot form and function comes again from the Blue Mountains of southeastern Washington State. This example was cast by Paul Freeman on January 14, 1991, along Mill Creek, outside Walla Walla, Washington. The tracks measured nearly 35 cm in length by 13 cm across the ball. The step length ranged from 1.0 to 1.2 m and the trackway was followed for more than two miles. Not only does the cast exhibit the distinctive pressure ridge in the appropriate position and orientation, but the double-convexity formed by the joints of the transverse tarsal joint is evident as well (Figure 5, bottom).”

      http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/JSE-303-Meldrum.pdf

      Delete
    8. ^ That’s your religion up in smoke. Oh how I laugh. And Philip Morris is dead. Just like Bindernagel was “American”, eh Stuey?

      “Tee heeeeee!!”

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

      Delete
    10. Wait....Hoaxer Freeman made the American plaster in the fringe journal? I had no idea it was THAT bad for footers.

      Delete
    11. When pseudosceptics, not to mention intellectual throw backs like Stuey, are confronted with conflicting facts, they experience what is referred to as cognitive dissonance. These people resolve conflicting ideas by means of preserving consistency in their belief systems. For example, if a Bigfoot obsessed pseudosceptic happens to discover that footprint evidence is now being peer reviewed and published, they would of course be facing some serious evidence that their deeply held beliefs are wrong. At this point it would be typical for them to find a means of somehow dismissing that evidence for their prior convictions. Given that their beliefs have been reinforced for many years, have likely become a major aspect of their identity, it means letting go is extremely difficult for them. They cope by a behaviour psychologists call motivated reasoning. This is the unconscious tendency of said people to mold their processing of information to conclusions that suit a preferred end.

      I find perfect examples of this in Stuey’s behaviour whereby harassing people on the internet who are merely convinced by evidence for the existence of “Bigfoot”, has become a major aspect of his identity. To belong to a “intellectually superior” cyber social group that makes him feel better than some people, to help him forget his social and emotional discontent. It’s a shame that he foundations such pedestals are made on sand. For example...
      • Stuey when confronted with proof that Patty is real (cognitive dissonance) - “Philip Morris’ costume that he didn’t even make, and which in fact looks nothing like Patty, means the subject in the PGF is guy in a costume (motivated reasoning).”
      • Stuey when confronted with proof that “Bigfoot” footprint evidence is authentic (more cognitive dissonance) - “it’s all down to an impossible thousand of years’ old, globe trotting hoaxing conspiracy (more motivated reasoning).”

      Delete
    12. Some of Paul Freeman’s tracks, some of which have the best dermal ridge evidence ever, have anatomical detail being replicated in Yeren footprint evidence in China - cognitive dissonance.

      Delete
    13. Absolutely

      The dermal ridges can’t be denied.

      Neither can stuzy’s obsession we you

      Delete
    14. You chose an impossible task, Iktomi. A dumb guy from Wales isn't going to convince anyone that a fantasy creature is real. You are a joke, a firebrand bigfoot believer.

      Delete
    15. Actually, it’s as easy as cutting & pasting a link to a peer reviewed journal. It appears that a whole editorial board of PhD’s don’t need convincing at least.

      And something tells me you ain’t laughing much.

      Delete
    16. You haven't convinced anyone, fool.

      People come here to laugh at you.

      Delete
    17. And how do you know that Stuey? The majority of people who would come here would be enthusiasts. And off the back of such a blithering archetype idiot like you, I can imagine loads of people would have been turned off by the manner of illogical and psuedoscientic pitfalls you offer up as reasons against “Bigfoot”.

      You’re not laughing Stuey... and that might have something to do with a sheer lack of satisfaction and motivated reasonings.

      Delete
  7. Don't find as much time to peruse this site as much as I like but do check in from time to time to see if anything major as regards to Bigfoot is taking place. Pretty much the usual characters and stories although I did learn of J.C. Johnson's demise from reading past comments just now. Although I never personally knew him, I remember when he use to occasionally comment on a site called Cryptozoology.com which is now defunct although a Facebook site might still exist.

    I'll sometimes fall asleep with the TV on in my bedroom and awoke to find (to my surprise and amusement) Jeff Meldrum on a show called Beasts of the Bayou. It seems he was with a group hunting down some kind of mutant wolf/coyote responsible for reported werewolf sightings in Louisiana. I'm not sure what his expertise was in dealing with this as I only caught a bit of the show. Since he seems to be a leading authority on Bigfoot, is it really good for his credibility to be on a fake show dealing with werewolves? His reputation is already suspect because of his dealings with Todd Standing. In either case I don't believe he is doing himself any favors by associating himself with these two endeavors.

    Just my two cents.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Meldrum is doing himself the favor of getting paid his 2 cents. Dogman is as real as bigfoot, as far as reality is concerned. Patterson equals Standing equals Dyer equals Dogman.

      Delete