Bigfoot Cover Up Explained
Mattsquatch Presents covers the subject of bigfoot cover up by the government. If we know they, then the government has to know all about these creatures. So why keep it a secret?
Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story
This story was circulating the internet way back in 2004, or maybe as far back as 1999. Back when everybody was on 56k dial-up modems and a "Facebook" was just a regular book with directory listing of names and headshots. This story was so disturbing and so shocking that nobody believed it at the time. It was the Robert Lindsay " Bear Hunter: Two Bigfoots Shot and DNA Samples Taken " story of the time. And like Robert's Bear Hunter story , this witness didn't have a name. The only thing known about the witness is that this person was a government employee, anonymous of course. The author of the story was a science teacher named Thom Powell who believe it really happened and that the whole story was an elaborate cover-up. Powell said the anonymous government employee alerted the BFRO about a 7.5 feet long/tall burn victim with "multiple burns on hands, feet, legs and body; some 2nd and 3rd degree burns". Sadly, there was no DNA samples taken from
Not to be uncouth, but why does the Patterson bigfoot not have a butt crack. Doesn't this indicate that "Patty" is a costume?
ReplyDeleteDr. Estaban Sarmiento, who is himself open minded about the existence of bigfoot, also questioned the veracity of the Patterson film subject based on this very issue.
DeleteIn the Wikipedia article about the Patterson-Gimlin film, Dr. Sarmiento is quoted as saying, "The gluteals, although large, fail to show a humanlike cleft (or crack)."
https://youtu.be/gtPhIMhS2as
DeleteOh please. The static diaper ass on the Patterson film creature is so obviously fake that the case is closed on "Patty" to anyone with an ounce of objectivity.
DeletePatterson was a conman, a huckster, a flim-flam man, a shyster. He was exactly the type of guy who would fake a bigfoot in order to make a buck and gain notoriety.
The Patterson film was a hoax, a hoax that happened to turn out better than Patterson could have ever hoped for. The lighting, distance, film graininess, etc. all coincidentally worked together to result in one of the best, most talked about and scrutinized hoaxes of the 20th century.
^ WHAT? That comment makes too much sense - we will have none of that here. Begone Satan!
DeleteSo since you had your first argument destroyed, and since you ask so nicely...
Delete“Patty’s” buttocks area has a classic inferolateral sag, with the excess skin draping below the musculature of the buttocks. The suspensory ligament that provides us with the buttock crease, the ligament of Luschka, prevents the skin from draping in a single sheet. The ligaments of Jacque, however, tend to lose elasticity with age, with the resultant tendency of the buttock to sag to the side. The fold in this area was commented on in the MMP, but the fact that it is present in humans merits restating, since the “buttock lift” is a relatively common operation performed by those of us in the plastic surgery field, and is designed to address this problem.
The folds in the upper thigh/hip area were well covered by the authors in the MMP. There was, however, another finding on the lateral thigh that was not mentioned. It is worth emphasizing for two reasons: 1) it can be clearly seen in the film footage; and 2) the fact that it is caused by a suspensory ligament that is probably only understood by a very select group of people, i.e., plastic surgeons. I, as one of that group, am aware of its existence since it has to be surgically released when a lateral thigh lift is performed. In my review of two separate anatomy texts, neither documented the presence of the ligament. Its main function is to support the lateral leg skin. When the skin becomes stretched out due to fat accumulation, a depression is seen in the upper 1/3 of the thigh, inferior to the creases that the MMP researched. The ligament in humans is relatively large, measuring approximately 4 inches long, and running across the axis of the leg. In the PGF subject, it may be a bit larger, as documented by the shadowing from the depression.”
O. Allen Guinn, III, M.D., F.A.C.S. Aurora Plastic Surgery
Lee’s Summit, MO
So to someone who’d rather attack the character of someone who presents evidence, it’s logical that Roger would have been so detailed in his "costume", shooting in shakey 16MM? Detail that was impossible to add to a costume even by Hollywood’s most expensive materials decades after 1967? I don't think he anticipated the footage being digitalised and stabelised 50 years later and decided to put SFX defying detail to his costume just in case. Detail that could have got him a job in the most well paid of Hollywood SFX as opposed to "swindling about Bigfoot". Might I add, that there is so much detail obtained from that footage, that the likes of you not only claim all sorts of imaginary zippers when it suits you, but we can comfortably compare and attribute the skin folds and muscle groupings to that of every day human beings.
Are you accustomed to common sense when pathologically denying “Bigfoot”?
Got monkey suit?
And when you’ve quite finished talking to yourself... PS.
DeleteDo you seriously have all of this stuff on standby to cut and paste it when needed?
DeleteThere is no absolute 100% conclusive proof that the Patterson film is legitimate. For over 50 years, there has been speculation back and forth about the truthfulness of this famous footage.
There have been many experts, both scientists and special effect/make-up experts, who have dismissed the Patterson film. For example:
Academy Award winning film special effects supervisor and makeup artist Stan Winston, after viewing the PGF, said "it's a guy in a hair suit, sorry!" He also added that "if one of my colleagues created this for a movie, he would be out of business." He went on to comment that the suit in the film could have been made today for "a couple hundred dollars" or "under a thousand, in that day".
Yes. Patterson had a disreputable character. Several people who knew Patterson personally are on record as saying such. He was the type of guy who would talk you into lending him money, and then you would never see your money again. He did this on more than one occasion.
It is an indisputable fact that Patterson tried to create and make money with a fictitious bigfoot film that he tried to produce, complete with Bob Gimlin dressed in a long hair Indian wig playing the part of an Indian guide who helps a group of cowboys track a bigfoot. When this fiction movie project fell through, all of a sudden, Patterson turns up with real footage. Hmmm? Imagine that.
haha, Iktomi schools the troll once again !
Deletesmoked like a kipper !
5:20 uses the same tired arguments the ISF rejects try to push on here
5:20- got monkey suit ?
cheers
Joe
Yeah, does that upset you?
Delete100% proof would be a cadaver. However setting hundreds of years of anthropological data, eyewitnesses and accompanying physical evidence, because nobody has put together an ample study yet to find one... Is not only an argument from ignorance fallacy, but sheer special pleading. Ok... so let’s say Roger Patterson was a terrible human being, as so many moral, free from sin people like yourself have rode on a high horse about... How does a morally corrupt, broke cowboy achieve impossible suit detail, to add to a costume even by Hollywood’s most expensive materials decades after 1967? Detail that could have got him a job in the most well paid of Hollywood SFX as opposed to "swindling about Bigfoot". How’s about we get around to addressing some glaring inconveniences in your standpoint?
Author David Murphy spent 11 years writing the biography of Roger Patterson (currently unreleased). In this time he interviewed over 70 people who had some acquaintance with Roger and Bob or people who knew them extremely well, and in that time he came across not one person who didn’t think highly of both individuals, not to mention endorse their credible nature. The idea that Roger Patterson is an evil person has come from the likes of people like Greg Long. Tell me... If someone enthusiastic about the subject were to research this poorly;
http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.com/2013/08/skeptoid-botches-analysis-of-patterson.html?m=0
... would you in all your higher peer scepticism be able to endorse it? And don’t make me cut & paste the areas where your source gets the events and subject matter embarrassingly wrong now. Roger Patterson was the first person to admit he probably wasn't the best person to have filmed a "Bigfoot". But if someone wanted to character assassinate you, there would be whole world of crap they could dig up on you. Still doesn't equate to someone being a "con man". Running up a long stance phone bill, being late to pay bills, being late in returning a camera... Does not equate to being a con man. And someone trying to tie up loose ends with terminal cancer will stoop to a lot.
And on with some more facts... The documentary Roger intended to show historical reports in to educate the public, and the footage of Patty are different things, even one of your prophets, Kitakraze acknowledges this to be the case;
"Roger's film Bigfoot: America's Abominable Snowman with Bob Gimlin, Bob Heironimus and other friends was taken, remade and adapted by Ron Olson and directed by Ed Ragozzino...
http://upload.wikime...t_Sasquatch.jpg
http://www.cryptomun...s/8eed5c421.jpg "
http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/33571-roger-pattersons-bigfoot-documentary/
Roger was never able to obtain funding to finish and/or distribute his documentary prior to his death. Also...
"Roger Patterson apparently knew Bob Hieronimous before he obtained the footage in 1967. Patterson had been wanting to film a low budget documentary about the subject. He organized some people in Yakima for some stock scenes on horseback for his film. Bob Hieronimous was apparently one of those people, but that appears to be the extend of his association with Roger." Also... This is what Hollywood could manage with monkey suits in 1976, almost ten years after the PGF was filmed;
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ouHWkvU6xNs/WSXXtlizrmI/AAAAAAAAY5Q/zS1VMfgKHN0aJcXK-COqBRTBlmE8sHP9wCLcB/s1600/abi3.png
Oh, and here I totally dissect Stan Winston’s comments about the PGF “costume”;
Deletehttp://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/questions-about-patterson-film.html?m=0
So... how’s about one of those “scientists” who have dismissed the film?
Its a bloke in a suit get over it
DeleteI’ve got Pedo Stu, an American, using British terminology.
DeleteOr is he just British?
You decide.
I have great respect for the U.K., United Kingdom, great respect. People call it Britain. They call it Great Britain. They used to call it England, different parts.
DeleteIktomi is a lying child molesting fü ck
DeleteI’ve never known any American to use as many examples of British slang & terminology. You sure you’re on a little obsessed?
DeleteOn a little obsessed?
DeletePedo Stu’s particularly funny when he tries his hand at the subject matter.
DeleteHere's the real Pedo^ shut up you perverted freak
DeleteIt doesn’t matter how many times you try and take control of it... it’s still easily referenced at the drop of a hat in writing from you. Are you kicking yourself for having such anger issues? Good, you will loads more by the end.
DeleteI molested children, that's 100% proven, right Joe?
DeleteThere are thousands of 6-11 feet tall 800 pound bipedal primates wandering all over North America unbeknownst to science. Yeaaaaaah. Riiiiiiight.
ReplyDeleteYes, and thousands of toothless rednecks know about them, but they are too stupid to capture one or prove its existence. The scientists who are skilled enough to track one down are too stupid to recognize what is obvious to thousands of country bumpkins. This is what we’re told to believe!
DeleteWhen you’re quite finished answering your own comments, Pedo Stu...
DeleteScience has nothing to be unbeknownst about. Science is a tool that has been used so far as to study the readily available data to determine its reliability. Science simply now needs to be applied to using that data in an adequate field study fitting for an intelligent primate.
“Thousands of toothless rednecks” have also reported what is commonly known as “Bigfoot” for decades. Luckily, they also report how they’re not ready to shoot what they can’t identify. There’s also plenty of missing ”toothless resnecks”. But if we’re to believe what we’re told by conspiracy theorists like you, regarding how allegedly easy it should be to shoot something of the reported size & agility of “Bigfoot”... Then why can’t these “toothless rednecks” put a bullet in other toothless rednecks in gorilla costumes?
The toothless rednecks won’t shoot them because they look too human, but the hoaxers would have to be wearing “gorilla costumes”? You directly contradicted yourself in the same paragraph dumb sh*t! Do you even understand your own argument?
DeleteFigure if speech... but continue to reach, since you’ve not had much to go on all day. A gorilla costume on a human from afar, is still a bipedal creature the average redneck isn’t going to expect when looking in the cross hairs.
DeleteGo lick your wounds... I’ll give you another pounding tomorrow, Pedo Stu.
Ha ha ha, yeah I’ll try to recover. It must be nice to be able to argue in the same comment that bigfoot is both human and a gorilla. You can just make up whatever BS your crazy mind dreams up and I guess it somehow makes sense to you!
DeleteBigfoot is "real" to Iktomi. He can't conclusively prove it to anyone, but to him it is "real." That's all that matters to the bigfoot believers.
DeleteAgreed, but is it too much to ask for him at least to keep his inane arguments consistent within the same comment?
DeleteWell I clocked in to see if something toward a challenge was published and just found Pedo Stu reaching some more. Pedo Stu, since you claim to know all the best hoaxing conspiracies & methods, if you were to purchase an ape costume, what is the likeliest ape-type you’d obtain? Something bipedal is still something bipedal, and something that thankfully hunters usually don’t want to open up on. If you know anything about hunting in the US, or anything about the vast majority of reports from hunters, you’d know this very fundamental fact. However actually looking at the subject and digging up the same destroyed Greg Long misinformed material appeared to be the preferred level.
DeleteAnd shall we talk of consistencies? Like starting off with 100 role-players that account for entire US and Canada, that then changes to ”an overwhelming majority”, that were misidentifying, then it was all “a joke”, then we went around two more times with the aforementioned, then the role-players amounting to just five (four of which were frequenters to this blog), THEN just three... THEN role-play was split into two camps (“producers and consumers”)... then we bounced back and forth from role-players to misidentification again about two more times... to where we landed relegating US role-players to impossible hoaxing numbers after applying a deflection comparison tactic. ALL THE WHILE NEVER ONCE ADDRESSING THE EVIDENCE THAT’S PEER REVIEWED. All because you were asked the first question ever about your conspiracy theory. Might I add... Months down the line and we’re still no closer to the first bit of coherency about these impossibly low in numbers, super-human evading, bullet dodging role-players that nobody EVER.
Let’s check our ducks are in order first, eh Pedo Stu?
Is English you second language?
DeleteCrazy trying to keep up, isn’t it? That would be the realisation that your conspiracy theory lacks even the most remote level of coherency.
DeleteGo back to your Greg Long, sucker.
Crazy sums you up, only crazy people say terrible things about children to deflect from losing an argument about bigfoot
DeleteAre you worried that you were reported to the authorities, Pedo Stu?
DeleteIt looks like a code red day, where all the paid Bigfoot disinformation people come out of the woodwork. What newbie Mattsquatch failed to point out, is that the two most important reasons that there is a coverup of sorts, is that Bigfoot was long ago declared by the U.S. Army to be top secret, and because Bigfoot are paranormal. Since our educational system has not been directed to educate anybody about anything being paranormal, since it would be much egg on face if the government came out to admit that the Bigfoot are paranormal. The second part of that problem is to then try and educate the public what that means. And then there is the other little problem of a high percentage of the population, not wanting to hear that an 800 lb tall hairy Bigfoot, could be standing right behind them, and they would never know it. So in order to keep the peace, the Bigfoot will always be top secret and not admitted to the public in a big way. On an individual basis, various government entities will admit that the Bigfoot are real, they just won't be coming on television and spilling their guts about Bigfoot. So get over it. One drawback of this policy, is that if you are a thin female and think that you can get naked out in the woods and go on a nature hike by yourself, you have about a 25% chance that you will never been seen alive again. Which would appear to make the government liable for this, but you will not be able to prove anything.
ReplyDeleteI blame it all on Bigfoot Erotica. A naked female out in the woods has no chance what-so-ever because Bigfoot are so aroused. We really need to stop people in government who promote this.
Delete