Do you know what makes Patty a real animal?


It's all in the details. M.K. Davis has carefully hand stabilized clips from the Patterson Bigfoot film and reveals some very subtle movements and motions that are hard to see in the raw footage. Check it out:



Comments

  1. First for Mike Brookresons bigfoot Christmas tree xx

    ReplyDelete
  2. MK is the best at showing the details that trolls really can't debunk.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Out or curiosity, what's the purpose of MK flipping the shot?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Were it not for the hoaxers, we wouldn't be here tonight enjoying each other's company. God bless Ray Wallace, Rick Dyer, and Lord Lickerpuss. The holy trinity of Bigfootery

    ReplyDelete
  5. MK Davis is one of the most credible voice in the pgf community.

    I choose who is credible and who's not

    :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Matt and BOBO say it be real, they been tracking bigfoots for years

      Delete
    2. Yes you do Joe. Just like in the last thread when you decided that if someone didnt have a PHD then they arent credible. The problem is a PHD means nothing these days. Most PHds cant even get a job b/c there phd is in subjects like communications, english, or math. In fact, you near half to have a phd just to be a credible candidate for a job. I known plenty of them, and not one of them is any more credible than anyone else. A doctorate simply is a sing of devoted study in classroom work. Thats all. So dont attempt to use a lack of a PHd to give or take away legitimacy.

      Delete
    3. Oh yeah, i have 8 Phds and a pair of glasses. That makes me the most credible voice in the bigfoot community

      Delete
    4. I have a PHD, I attended one of the most important college in the UK. At least this is what I tell to people.

      :)

      Delete
    5. Uh oh. Joe has no rebuttal for his ignorant comment in the last thread about needing a PHd to be credible. So he swapped out got monkey suit, for got phd. See how he did that. Isnt i clever. A quick cut and paste for him, but all in a days work

      Delete
    6. Hes blowing, hes going nuclear.

      Delete
    7. Do you have a PHD joe, and if so, what in?

      Delete
    8. ... Answer the question, it's not difficult...

      Delete
    9. Do you have a PHd Joe, b/c if you dont, by your logic, that means you have no credibility. But we already know you dont and you never had any cred, and never will. And who is refusing to answer the question now Joe.

      Delete
    10. Man up... Answer the question... Got PHD?

      Delete
    11. As a matter of fact, yes Joe i do. I graduated with my BS in chemistry, then went on to pharmacy school and graduated class of 2011. I now can put the little phd in front of my name if i wish, but it means nothing, as it has no significance in my day to day job.

      Now that i have answered your question Joe, do i have more cred in the bigfoot field? And do you have a Phd? lets hear it Joe

      Delete
    12. BS!

      You realized as soon as I put you on the spot that you drew yourself into looking silly.

      Shut up and sit down... You just got played at your own troll game.

      Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

      Delete
    13. Lol, you can believe what you want Joe. But do you have a PHD?

      Delete
    14. And Joe, if i was making up a Phd, wouldnt i go for something more academic to make myself look more credible. Or maybe even a doctor. Nope, i chose a pharmacist, b/c thats an obvious choice. Lol. I think your just a tad jealous there Joe, that you have someone intelligent who is humiliating you. And that you dont have a job that pays 120 grand a year. And i also pretty much get to write my own work schedule. One of the perks of having a white coat and a vast knowledge of drugs. For you Joe, i would recommend Haloperidol, 2 po qd. Look up that lingo Joe, you may learn something

      Delete
    15. Thats what i thought and already knew. No you dont have Phd Joe, in fact you probably dont even have a college degree. Dont be mad that your lack of education leaves you open to criticism on a bigfoot blog. i might also add a heaping dose of prednisone to your Rx too Joe, It would allow you to achieve whats known as "moon face' and will make your head look bigger than it is. For you, you would enjoy the swelled face and head. It would make you look smarter, lol

      Delete
    16. Allow me to make you look even stupider with your comments. What would you like to know about medications and medication interactions Joe? Im guessing you probably take between 5 and 8 meds a day. Probably something for BP, probably something for stomach problems, maybe GERD or IBS, and also an antidpressant. Would you like an interaction profile Joe? Or maybe a consultation of why your meds may be counteracting one another. Perhaps we can start with the many CYP enzymes that affect drug distribution and breakdown. So just a rookie question Joe, which CYP is the one most docs worry about? Yep that would be P450, but we can talk about monooxygenases all day if you wish. Poor Joe, telling people what jobs they do and dont have. Humorous.

      Delete
    17. I only take bananas. You guess in which way.

      :)

      Delete
    18. MELTDOWN ^^^

      LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    19. Epic meltdown right here everyone!!!!!

      The troll melting down quicker than buyer in the sun!!!!!!

      LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    20. I would also be willing to go over the top 200 and how they work and what biological effect they produce. More than likely your meds are included in the 200. Let me give you a real quick lesson Joe. Lets talk about stomach acid, something i deal with daily. You may take a PPI or an H2 blocker for this, but why do they work Joe? Well a PPI such as prilosec, prevacid, nexium, etc works by basically turning off the stomach acid pumps in your stomach. your stomach produces a steady stream of H+ ions. This is what accounts for the acidity in your stomach. A PPI will , in effect, and greatly simplified, turns off those Hydrogen pumps. But you also have your H2 blockers, referring to Hydrogen there again. These are agents like Zantac, Pepcid, etc. They work by neutralizing the stomach acid already present. They dont touch the amount of acid pumped, they just helped to neutralize the acidity. So next time you get a bad case of acid refllux, i suggest trying a PPI with an H2 blocker for max resutl. Or you can go with something such as Zegrid which contains both Prilosec (generic form) and basically tums. While tums is not an H2 blocker, it too helps neautralize acidity.

      Would you like me to explain how other drugs work in conjunction with the body and what drugs would be best to treat them? Just let me know? Want to apologize now for mouthing off about what my job is?

      Delete
    21. No Joe, there is no meltdown. Those are only reserved for you. I simply was putting you in your place when you tried to tell me what my career was or wasnt. Now that you have been made to look a fool on that aspect, i await the answer to my question. Do you have a PHD joe?

      Delete
    22. I guess i should add that H2 blockers dont so much as neutralize the acid, as much as they just block H2 recpetors in the stomach. I always think of it as neutralization, but its really not. Its that the drug blocks H2 receptors preventing the acid from producing the effect that it typically would. thought i should clarify that for you.

      Delete
    23. Bro... For someone who trolled for months and months, for someone who has spoken about other people's 'meltdowns'... You sure bit like a snapper!!

      Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!

      I'm going to draw attention to this thread for weeks, silly boy!!!!

      LOL!!!

      Delete
    24. You should know Joe, that i am not that troll, but dont mind taking credit for it. Please do draw attention to it. I suggest that you copy and paste my remarks and save them. That way when you post them, people can have a good laugh at how you were made to look a fool.

      And you still havent answered my question there Joe, do you have a phd? or even a college degree?

      Delete
    25. Fingers typing frantically no doubt!!!!!

      Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!

      Delete
    26. Bro... It's simple!

      None of your business!!

      You got sucked in to the meltdown of the week bro... How's it feel to be a trolled troll????!!!!

      Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

      Delete
    27. ... And back to the subject matter; prepare for an even bigger meltdown.

      In the last thread you stated that a PHD is no big deal, anyone can have one... Well why are we supposed to listen to a guy (Packham) who not only has to edit and sensationalize an interview because his sham of a suit failed... But who is advising us on a subject he can't even get a PHD in???

      Also... If a PHD is no big deal, it certainly is to you bro!!!

      Ha ha ha ha!!

      For a 'PHD', you sure don't debate like one!

      ; )

      Delete
  6. Am sure this will solve it once and for all !!!

    hee heee...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bob Gimlin's words to confirm M K Stabilization.

    The creature walked away with an easy motion, swinging its arms like a human. Yes, I could see the muscles clearly and that was one of the deciding factors in my opinion that this was no 'man in a suit.' The thighs, the buttocks, the arms and shoulders, you could see it move underneath the suit.

    Page 176 Sasquatch Legend meets Science.
    Chuck


    Chuck

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can totally see the detail, the dorsi back muscles, bulging and moving. Dare I say, the detail of the butt crack as well.

      Delete
    2. Yeah Ernie, I was able to see the individual cheek movement on this one.

      Delete
    3. Joe, when you post as Ernie, do you like to watch the patty back muscles flex?

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

      Delete
    5. Yikes, is that a comment deletion.

      Delete
    6. I go meltdown when I think of Patty's butt. Sexually induced meltdown.

      :)

      Delete
    7. Would that be the patty butt, or the patty butt diaper?

      Delete
    8. A link that noone will ever visit from a guy no one will ever respect...........sigh

      Delete
    9. ... Because it blows you out of the water.

      Schooled.

      Delete
    10. No not quite Joe, you have simply posted so many links that no one cares to visit them anymore. And by never having original thought, you lost any respect you had. So there you have it. The answers to why your arguments never hold water.

      Delete
    11. Got diaper butt?

      http://youtu.be/wQr922oWdgY

      ... Now you look silly.

      Delete
    12. So now you have resorted to using the one line that has been used countless times to insult you. Yep i sure do look silly

      Delete
    13. No, no... Got diaper butt?

      http://youtu.be/wQr922oWdgY

      ; )

      Delete
  8. bigfoots animulls abouts in the woods,

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mistake alert. Meant to right you could see it move underneath the hair. Sorry
    Chuck

    ReplyDelete
  10. Bloke in a suit. You already knew that but don't want to give up on the childhood fantasy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Got magic monkey suit with moving shoulder blades?

      You already knew you didn't but can't let the childhood reassurance of the boogeyman slide.

      Delete
    2. Lets revisit the Blevins suit and your previous commnets of it Joe. Before the Blevins suit came out you swore up and down that NO ONE could make a suit that altered human proportions to supposedly match those of Patty. You were firm in that belief. Then a guy on a skimp budget created such a suit. Then you changed your view, and said that the blevins suit lacked any muscle definition so it proved nothing. Do you not see your hypocracy. As soon as you are proved wrong on one point, you act like nothing happened and just defend another without even realizing that half your argument got obliterated.

      Delete
    3. http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/leroy-blevins-unfinished-aborted.html?m=1

      ... How embarrassing for you.

      Ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    4. Once again, Joe has no rebuttal, so just produces a copy and pate link. Joe, you are way off your game today. I expected a much bigger copy and paste

      Delete
    5. Everything I need to say is in the ridiculous photograph of Blevins in that link. Compare that picture to the one up top...

      Your argument; obliterated.

      Delete
    6. My argument was in the proprtions that were altered by the suit. Nothing more. Your old argument used to be centered around the fact that no one could match the appendage proportions seen in the Patty film. When someone did, you ignored it, and immediatly switched subjects.

      Delete
    7. Blevins suit? is that the best the sketardians can come up with as an argument this days? looks like utter crap and took a decade to make? yeaha ok then...

      Delete
    8. Ok... So your argument is the proportions, but Blevins doesn't have the proportions, neither does it have the look or the realism of Patty.

      Blevins does nothing but strengthen our case that Patty is flesh and blood.

      Delete
    9. ... And even if it had the proportions of Patty, which is physically impossible, you still wouldn't have the realism and the muscle tissue, the face... So it still would have failed.

      Yet you have neither and the Blevins is what it is; a tool for our argument.

      Delete
  11. Man you guys are all in. I guess it's all you have. So ride it for all it's worth. Still a guy in a suite. Sorry

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't be sorry. Nothing wrong with being skeptical.

      Delete
    2. Joe, when you post as Ernie, do you like talking to skeptics?

      Delete
  12. dont forget to poop next to a tree to mark whar U have been : )

    ReplyDelete
  13. They already proved this was a hoax the man who wore the suit confessed years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Patty is a bloke in a suit filmed by conman. Just like Hank.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He was quite a character, and had always been. He'd been a competitive rodeo cowboy, part-time rancher, and full-time slacker. Few who knew him had anything positive to say about him. His reputation was that he never paid his bills. He borrowed money, lied about it, and never paid it back. He was physically very strong — not an ounce of fat, and thick with muscles — and was fond of showing it off. He knew everything better than anyone, and nobody could tell him a thing. He never kept interest in one career very long. One day he'd build stagecoaches for miniature horses; the next day he'd repaint junk found at the dump and sell it. But his one saving grace was his wife Patricia. Patty had a brother in Yakima, WA, Al DeAtley, a successful asphalt contractor, who provided money whenever it was needed. It was this even keel that got Roger Patterson through.

      The story goes that Patterson and Gimlin had developed a strong interest in Bigfoot, and in October 1967 they rented the movie camera and went off on horseback for a couple weeks to look for it. Next thing they knew, they'd become the luckiest Bigfoot hunters in history, when the creature obligingly stepped out of the woods and strode across the clearing for Patterson's camera, in the early afternoon of October 20th. Gimlin chased it on horseback, lost it, but found its footprints; then they rode about 5 kilometers back to camp for their plaster of paris. They rode back, poured plaster into the footprints, waited for it to dry, then went back to camp again. They loaded their horses into the trailer and drove 40 kilometers on rough fire roads back to Willow Creek, and posted the film off to Yakima to get it developed. It was about 4:00 in the afternoon.

      The glaring impossibility of this timeline is what first raised suspicions among skeptics. In response, Patterson and Gimlin began providing all sorts of different versions of their story. Other suspicious cryptozoologists, such as Peter Byrne, found holes and contradictions in those stories. In the end, the version Patterson and Gimlin settled on was that they put the film onto a plane and flew it to Yakima, where Al DeAtley picked it up to have it developed. Byrne found that the only charter planes that could have flown that route that day were all grounded due to rain and bad weather. Since then, few serious researchers took Patterson and Gimlin's story seriously.

      But the film had already grown larger than all of them. It was a sensation, and to this day, rakes in revenue in licensing fees. DeAtley backed Patterson and formed Bigfoot Enterprises on November 1, just 10 days after the shoot, and reported $200,000 in the first year. Make no mistake about it: for the late 1960s and a man who used dig through the dump, Bigfoot was big money. Throughout the 1970s, Patty Patterson, Al DeAtley, Bob Gimlin, and a wildlife film company fought numerous lawsuits with one another over the rights to the footage. The biggest winner was a Bigfoot fan named Rene Dahinden, who ended up with about half of the rights, and Patty with the other half.

      Delete
    2. It was in 2004 that author Greg Long dug into this mess to sort everything out. Over a period of six years, he actually went and met face to face with all of these characters who were still alive, and many other people — anyone he could find who knew Patterson or was involved in the film in any way. His entire adventure was published in his entertaining book The Making of Bigfoot: The Inside Story.

      That wildlife film company just mentioned, American National Enterprises, turns out to have been pivotal. Patterson had been driving down to Hollywood a lot, trying to sell the idea of a pseudo-documentary about Bigfoot; based on Patterson's own self-published 1966 book Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist? Studios wouldn't bite, but ANE did. It was with their money that Patterson rented his camera and took some pre-production stills of his buddies allegedly on a Bigfoot hunt, but actually in Patterson's own backyard. They included Bob Gimlin costumed up as a native American guide. ANE's movie was to be titled Bigfoot: America's Abominable Snowman.

      Bob Heironimus was a sturdy, hulking 26-year-old laborer who lived a few doors down from Bob Gimlin. One day Gimlin told Heironimus that Patterson would pay him $1000 for a day's work on a film set wearing a costume. Heironimus readily agreed; that was a lot of money. He met with the men once or twice to try on a gorilla suit and make some adjustments. Then one day, he drove down to Willow Creek. He spent the night at their camp, and the next day they shot the footage.

      ANE's money had also been used to buy the gorilla suit. It came from Philip and Amy Morris, established makers of gorilla suits for carnivals. They told Greg Long that they had recognized the suit when they saw Patterson's film on television, and that Patterson had asked their advice in modifying the suit to make the arms longer. They'd even shipped him extra synthetic fur, made from a material called Dynel. They also advised him to put a football helmet and shoulder pads on the suit wearer to make him look enormous. Not surprisingly, when Greg Long asked Bob Heironimus about the suit, he also mentioned that he wore a football helmet and shoulder pads inside of it.

      Bob Heironimus then went home, where his mother and two brothers also saw the suit, and waited patiently for his $1000. In accordance with his character, Patterson never paid Heironimus a dime. When he saw the film hit it big, Heironimus feared prosecution for fraud for his role in its production, and so made no further efforts to collect, nor ever spoke up about it to anyone. A groundless fear perhaps, but very real for an honest and innocent young man.

      The camera store had to file charges for theft against Patterson to get him to finally return the camera. ANE lost every penny of their investment; Patterson immediately abandoned their pseudo-documentary and, in essence, stole the film clip that was rightfully their intellectual property. It was only 30 years later that Greg Long was able to piece together the entire story by talking to all of those involved. Holes still remain; for example, Al DeAtley claims to have no recollection of where or when he supposedly developed the film, or how he received it from his brother in law. The October 20 timeline is clearly impossible as given, but no evidence could be found to provide actual dates for when the film was actually shot or developed. With much credit going to Greg Long, we now have a reasonably solid reconstruction of the film's complete history, with plenty of space in the gaps to fill with anything more plausible than the Patterson-Gimlin claim of the world's luckiest Bigfoot hunt.

      Delete
    3. In 1967, Roger Patterson was a young man, only 41 years old. He was strong and exuberant — an amateur boxer known for walking on his hands on the small town's main street — too lazy to take a regular job, too much in love with his wife Patricia, and too many stars in his eyes to stick within the confines of the even the flamboyant rodeo. He was inwardly happy but outwardly grumpy, frustrated with society's conventions that expected him to be less than he wanted to be. But even at that young age, he was dying of cancer. Roger may have had a year left or five, and his thoughts were consumed with providing for his beloved wife while still being the rascal that he needed to be. When Roger put that film cartridge into his camera, it wasn't with the careful eye of a cinematographer. Nor was it with the deliberate mischief of a hoaxer. It was with the vivacity of a happy-go-lucky shortcutter, a candle doomed to burn half as long, and desperate to burn twice as bright. His thoughts were on Patricia and with squeezing in one final success, a roll of the dice, a lottery ticket. If his Bigfoot movie failed, he would die as the obscure debtor as which he'd been cut out; but if he won, he'd be the flash in the pan that he needed to be to sustain his wife and justify his years of skylarking. Roger Patterson made the gamble he needed to make. The wheel of fortune spun, and as it does every once in a great while, it made Roger the winner. It turned Bigfoot into a real monster that walked across the clearing and into legend and permanence.

      Just over four years later, Roger Patterson lay in bed and drew his final breaths. The film had been a great success, and brought in a constant stream of money unlike anything he'd ever known. Patricia securely owned enough of the film rights to sustain herself. When he finally closed his eyes, Roger went to that great Bigfoot pasture in the sky, without ever having compromising the eternal youth that was in his makeup to be. He never paid his bills. He never sold hours of his life. He never put in an honest day of someone else's work. He never sacrificed his lack of principles. He never gave up being untrustworthy and living his few years on his own terms. Yet, perhaps it was that insistence on being who he was that caused his film to outlive nearly everyone else of his day. Even as a hoax, the Patterson-Gimlin film is perhaps the most honest film ever made.

      -Brian Dunning

      Delete
    4. Very well said, and all true, and then there is this:

      Its just too easy.

      Bloke in a suit.

      Show us the verified evidence of bigfoot? We can do it no problem for every other species. Why not bigfoot? Too easy. Cos it don't exist.

      Royally smoked.

      The funniest thing is the footers will attempt to shoehorn anything they can to be "evidence" of bigfoot. None of it is scientificly acceptable of course but it sure does give us a hilarious circus show to watch. No complaints here.

      Let's go back to the packham bigfoot suit that joe and the resident butthurt footer and poster boy for footer stupidity were talking about earlier. Do you really look at that and think that was a recreation of the pgf? Of course it wasn't. If it was an actual recreation attempt you'd think they would at least get the colour right. The bbc just got a costume company to make them a bigfoot suit and that is what they got. This is a classic example of one of many failed arguments put forth by the footers.

      If we want to look at a patty recreation how about we actually look at one rather than using one that clearly wasnt meant to be a patty recreation.We have 2 examples of these. We have the dfoot recreation and the blevins recreation. Both excellent examples. Blevins recreated the arm proportions perfectly but his budget was too low to get a similar style fur. Dfoots recreation showed identical "muscle" and bulk, quite excellent really. This is the same guy that made patty bleevers on the bff look like fools when he photoshopped patty onto a different background and all the bleevers said it was an obvious suit. He embarrassed them so bad they banned him and swept the whole thing under the giant footers rug of ignorance. Also lets not forget that side by side shot of a gemora butt with the patty butt. Identical.

      And anyway the whole notion of requiring an identical replication is nonsense anyway. The footers know this which is why they use it, instead of doing something like, oh I dont know, find a real life specimen that matches patty.

      Its just too easy.

      Delete
    5. NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

      Schooled!

      You were welcome

      Delete
    6. You must be having a nervous breakdown after those copy and pastes huh Joe? Well if you cant take the copy and paste heat, get out of the frying pan.

      Delete
    7. you guys realize that's not joe right?

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

      Delete
    9. http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/bird-watchers-encounter-bigfoot-family.html?m=0

      http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/skeptoid-botches-analysis-of-patterson.html?m=1

      ; )

      Delete
    10. I dont think joe has taken such a beating in a few days. He was thoroughly destroyed above. All he could come up with was 2 copy and paste links that noone ever visits. We definetly are in full meltdown swing.

      Delete
    11. http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/bird-watchers-encounter-bigfoot-family.html?m=0

      http://bigfootbooksblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/skeptoid-botches-analysis-of-patterson.html?m=1

      ; )

      Delete
    12. That was a simple copy and paste. Cmon Joe, you can do better

      Delete
    13. I now have 20 millions links saved on my PC. My Hard disk is blowing off!

      :)

      Delete
    14. Everything you need to take apart every one of those copy and pastes up top is in the links I provided.

      Learn something.

      Delete
  15. It's a real man in a real suit.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The scaredy cats and government agents who are paid to yell FRAUD at any and every bigfoot related post and piece of evidence that shows up on the internet are doing their job I see...

    ReplyDelete
  17. SHAWN!!!

    Amazing posting this video, it blows these trolls out of the water, and for a bunch of trolls that love 'trolling' they sure don't like being trolled back!!

    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  18. CODE RED! CODE RED! There cleaning off the benches at JREF and cryptozoology.com and they are all piling on here with their copy and paste submittals from their ANTI-BIGFOOT PROPAGANDA DATABASE. It's just like WW2 Hitler's Germany, except with computers to facilitate the manipulation of the masses.

    ReplyDelete
  19. All bullshit aside folks, you can see the butt cheeks moving independently, that proves its not a friggin suit....wow
    MK is awesome!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Samurai Chatter: Have you used it in the field?