Listen to Phillip Morris Try to Convince People That He Created The Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot
Philip Morris, a costume maker from Charlotte, North Carolina claims he was the guy who made the "Monkeysuit" and sold it to Roger Patterson in 1967. He also claims that he gave Patterson advice on how to help make his "creature" look more genuine. About two months after selling Patterson the costume, the famous Gimlin-Patterson Bigfoot film became one of the biggest news stories in 1967.
In November 2008, TV Land aired Philip Morris' story of how he created a Bigfoot costume and sold it to Patterson. The following video shows Bob Hieronimus (who claims to be the guy in the original costume) and Phillip Morris on TV with the suit they created to prove that Bob was the one who was Patty in the P/G film. Unfortunately, the costume in their possession looks nothing like the one in the original film.
In a recent interview with Darkness Radio, Morris is still trying to convince the public that famous Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film is a hoax and that he provided the costume for the film.
Click on this link to listen: http://podbay.fm/show/294988529/e/1402720059?autostart=1
Here's Bob Hilarious and Philip Morris on TV talking about the costume:
Force
ReplyDeleteLoad of bull. That 'creature' looks nothing like Patty.
ReplyDeleteI am at 4th and Vine at thu pon shop I gots thu soot.
DeleteI win.
Juss bleeve me 'kay? Bleeve me, pleess!!
I got thu proof it wuz a soot.
Pluss sins Bob G reseeved sum nales and plywood wen he wuz about 20 and maybee didunt pay for em that prooves the pgf is fake and bigfoot dont exist. Much. It dont exist much.
Of course not. The original film is a bad quality.
DeleteThis is filmed close up with modern cameras.
It was a hoax and you are all fools.
No doubt this will bring the trolls out. I'm going to bed, when I wake up there will be 100+ hits on this thread.
ReplyDeleteAnd it will still be a bloke in a suit and bigfoot still won't exist.
DeleteI really think people like you do need to wake up
Delete9ft 800pd magic monkey in Americas national parks
ye right and we are the uniformed foolish trolls. lol
What about Roger Patterson buying a gorilla suit? Philip Morris does not claim to have records, only a memory.
Delete"The set-up is this: Our old friend Phillip Morris apparently goes around and tells people what a load a hokum the PGF is based on how he made the costume and all. In order to make his little talk more effective, he reached out to Edmunds to make him a “state of the art” bigfoot suit. Think about that for a second. This is the guy who made the original. In 1967. But to help demonstrate how the PGF figure is a dude in a suit, he turns to a professional costume and effects manufacturer to make him one using 21st century technology and techniques. OK. This thing is, I bet, going to be pretty awesome.
Here’s the PGF-related segment from the show:
www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/patterson-gimlin-film-debunking-debunked/
"Pretty cool costume. Too bad it looks absolutely nothing like the PGF figure. Hell, it’s not even half as good as the Jack’s Links sasquatch. Also, note the size of the head on the thing and consider that in the context of what Bill Munns told us on BFS 50: The head has to be huge in Edmunds’ suit to fit the head of an actor. The head of the PGF figure is freakishly small."
The irony is it doesn't not matter if Philip morris is telling the truth. The film is still a bloke in a suit.
DeleteThe ultimate irony is a costume expert of 30 years; the only one that's spent more than two seconds lookig at it, telling you it's anything but a man in a fur suit.
DeleteGot monkey suit?
There are more relevant costume experts who say its a suit. Deal with it.
DeleteAnd what experts against Munns would they be exactly?
DeleteRick Baker - 'rumoured' to have made the costume (while he was 17) as he was 'apparently' working on movies at the time, whilst none of his representatives are willing to comment and verify those claims.
Howard Berger - merely claimed that he heard that the PG film was a 'gag' and has yet to comment on why he thinks it's a suit and compares the PG creature to Harry and the Henderson's as 'proof' it's fake.
Dave Kindlon - claims he 'overheard' PG was fake from Rick Baker - again, full of claims and rumors and speculates it's fake as opposed to offering any explanation why it's a 'suit'
Verne Langdon - claims that 'the suit was advanced for the day' (opinionated I believe and again not offering an explanation how the suit was made)
... The list of these experts goes on with them all turning out to be close associates and none of them offering an explanation as to how the 'suit' was made... casting their opinion like all lazy uninterested-where-it-counts skeptics. Whereas, Bill Munns DOES actually look into the possibility of a suit being made and can't for the life of him replicate it & neither able to fit the dimensions of a human in it.
D-d-d-d-deal with it.
Bill Munns failing to make a suit does not mean bigfoot is real.
DeleteNo... Bill Munns pointing out imhuman proportions in an umimicable subject does.
DeleteYes the subject has inhuman proportions.... Because the subject is a human in a suit. You are mental.
DeleteA suit never subtracts, it always adds. Some of the proportions of Patty lack the length of what a normal human can accomplish.
DeleteWho's mental?
Doesn`t really matter in the overall scheme of bigfoot things whether "Patty" is real or not...what matters is whether the creature exists...and there IS evidence to say it does...it is real...but I guess that is too much for some folk who have never been out of their armchairs to deal with...deal with THAT...sucker.
DeleteNo suitable evidence for it's existence. Nothing legitimate that I can take to my old biology proffessor and hand him, saying "told you."
DeleteIs hair biological evidence, Danny? Last time I checked it was.
DeleteAnd it's a stretch titling Bill Munns as an expert in costume design. Experts excell in their field, they are widely acknowledged and respected in their field, they push innovative boundaries. Stephen King is an expert in writing horror, Jane Goodall is an expert with Chimpanzees, Dr. West is an expert in African history, Bill Muray is an expert in comedy.
DeleteBill Munns last attempt at a top level production set lead to him being fired in the middle of the production because his work was highly flawed and his skills were subpar.
He may be good in things he does, Joe, but he's far from an expert.
PJ, at best you have inconclusive results on any hair sample. Congrats, the world is full of inconclusive results, moreso than positive results. Until you have the scientific community on their toes because you have irrefutable evidence of Sasquatch, you're just blowing smoke up people's behinds.
DeleteHere is where I showed you hair;
Deletehttp://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/watch-recent-ancient-skeleton-shedding.html?m=0
... And here is where I proved Munns' credentials;
http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/dead-bigfoot-true-story-premieres.html?m=1
... Thought I'd save us the dance.
Following are the words from the crazed Anti-American Brit on June 14. Two days after his tirade, the US beat Ghana in the soccer World Cup. Key here is that player John Brooks is neither “black” nor a “gangsta wannabe.”
DeleteSo let’s see lunatic Brit, that makes you wrong on how many counts all within your one ridiculous post? Go throw your tantrums somewhere else. Let’s take a look at your gorgeous comment two days before the US beat Ghana in The World Cup:
http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2014/06/did-thesquatchmaster-film-big-black.html#moretop
AnonymousSaturday, June 14, 2014 at 6:07:00 AM PDT
I think you'll find games where you use your hands to play with a ball is for wankers with no talent.
hence Americans embrace the little girl sports like baseball and basketball
better know in Europe as rounders and netball. Games played by girls. seriously
the whole world embraces football[soccer for some reason in US]. its the biggest sporting event in the world easily dwarfing the Olympics. South America, Europe,Asia and Africa etc...everywhere bar north America, is glued to the world cup for a month
I went to the world series[game 1] the year Boston won it[2008 I think] and watched the Yankees win that one at their stadium it was the dullest experience I've ever had at a sporting occasion. this at your premier sporting occasion alongside the superbowl[a 5 hour snore fest played by black gangsta wanabees and all amreican wankers]
face it Americans don't do manly sports. if it wasn't for black afro Americans you'd have no world class athletes of any kind. maybe a dope cheating cyclist and a couple of swimmers!!lol
anyway how is the search going for the 9ft 800pd magic monkey in your national parks
still no luck]
I reckon 2015 is the year of the squatch
keep up the good work Yankees. the world loves ye
Now let’s take a look at what happened two days after your comment:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/us-soccer-beats-ghana-in-world-cup-thriller-on-john-brooks-goal/2014/06/16/6c91a81c-f5b2-11e3-930d-ca5db8eb8323_story.html
Oh the hilarity, the hilarity, the hilarity.
You wouldn’t be the “bigfoot don’t exist/#looneytoons approved” Brit nutjob, would you? No, couldn’t be!!!
Will be posting this a few times in the coming days for maximum impact and enjoyment.
Keep on wankin’, keep on tardin’, and keep on jrefin’, lunatic.
See you around, psycho.
Wow...Captain Crazy just sucked the life out of this comment box.
DeleteThough I absolutely love football (soccer)... I enjoyed this post when I read it this morning, great stuff.
DeleteGreat post hopefully it will make some of the bleevers think twice about the film.
ReplyDelete100% bloke in a suit
Got monkey suit?
DeleteSearch Google plenty of monkey suits.
DeleteDid you know you can also tailor make a suit to any spec?
What's more likely.
A suit existed that looks like the pgf or roger who rented a camera to film a bigfoot just happened to film a bigfoot.
Yea that's a real headscratcher right there for you idiots haha
Plenty of monkey suits, none that subtract proportions... This is child's play.
DeleteYou want a 'monkey', yet condemn a source because a researcher was merely successful? Rhetorical, fear ridden dribble. How is one meant to film a Sasquatch in the 60 without renting a camera?
(Oh dear)
; )
Peer-reviewed Science Proving the Patterson-Gimlin Film is not of a Bigfoot Costume but a Novel Primate Species.
DeleteThe Relict Hominoid Inquiry | Idaho State University;
A journal providing "scholarly peer-reviewed papers exploring and evaluating the possible existence and nature of relict hominoid species around the world."
Surface Anatomy and Subcutaneous Adipose Tissue Features in the Analysis of the Patterson-Gimlin Film Hominid.
The anatomical form of the Patterson - Gimlin film (PGF) hominid has been debated for many years, in terms of musculoskeletal anatomy (if it is biologically real), or costume material flaws (if it is a hoax). What has been neglected however, are comparisons and contrasts of equivalent surface anatomy and subcutaneous adipose features of real human and great ape bodies. Many presumed anomalies seen in the appearance of the film subject have been uncritically attributed to artifacts of a fabricated costume. It has been asserted that these attributes are inconsistent with real musculoskeletal anatomy. An examination of normal human and great ape surface anatomy reveals that the PGF hominid ’s anatomical features are, in fact, found in the superficial tissues of the human body that is aged, lacks superficial physical or athletic tone, or has not been altered by either surgical procedures or digital enhancement (“photoshopped”). The presence of equivalent surface anatomy features in the hominid body that are consistent with observed traits of the PGF hominid nullifies previous claims that such traits of necessity indicate a costume. Rather they are consistent with the conclusion that the PGF hominid indeed represents a novel primate species.
Honorary Board Members;
George Schaller, PhD is recognized as the world's preeminent field biologist and conservationist, studying wildlife for over 50 years throughout Africa, Asia and South America. He is a senior conservationist at the Bronx Zoo-based Wildlife Conservation Society.
John Bindernagel, PhD
Courtenay, BC, Canada
Todd Disotell, PhD
New York University New York, NY
Colin Groves, PhD
Australian National University
Canberra, Australia
Chris Loether, PhD
Idaho Sate University
Pocatello, ID
Jeffrey McNeely, PhD
Chief Scientist IUCN - World Conservation Union
Gland, Switzerland
Lyn Miles, PhD
University of Tennessee, Chattanooga
John Mionczynski
Wildlife Consultant
Atlantic City, WY
Anna Nekaris, PhD
Oxford Brooks University
Oxford, England
Ian Redmond, OBE
Conservation Consultant
Manchester, England
Esteban Sarmiento, PhD
Human Evolution Foundation
East Brunswick, NJ
Zhou Guoxing, PhD
Beijing Museum of Natural History
Beijing, China
http://www.isu.edu/rhi/index.shtml
You do realise that isn't a real scientific journal right?
DeleteYou do realize you'll have to think of better arguments now that real science has been applied... Right?
DeleteYep you are right sykes applied real science and obliterated all your hopes and dreams.
Deletehttp://www.bigfootbuzz.net/rhettman-issues-statement-about-sykes-dna-project/
DeleteNo, no... The pleasure's all mine.
Lol that guy has nothing to do with it.
DeleteSykes found no bigfoot. There was even a documentary. About bigfoot. And guess what. He found no bigfoot. Sykes and Evans were even filmed having a good laugh at the notion of 2 groups of footers wood knocking back and forth to each other and thinking it's a bigfoot responding.
You are obliterated.
"Lol that guy has nothing to do with it."
DeleteReally? This is the guy who brought you your 'Zana 100% modern human' results... Is he legit or not?
"The results aired on the television shows do not compromise Bryan’s paper in peer review. The show is purely entertainment and as I said before, we had no control over it. So the concerns of some people who think that results revealed in the show are leaks from the paper are unfounded. We kept things quiet for so long, why would we suddenly “leak” anything? We are a professional organization and adhere to the proper scientific process."
... Again, this from the same guy who informed the public on behalf of the study of the Zana results.
Is he legit or not?
No clue what you're on about, no laughing at woodknocks at all, no brains.
Check the scene where they are talking about it in the car. It is in fact Bryan that suggests the idea!
DeleteI always find the idea hilarious that Sykes would do a show about bigfoot but then forget to mention he found a bigfoot in that very same show, about bigfoot.
DeleteYou are not living in the real world.
Again... Actually read it this time... I know it's difficult...
Delete"The results aired on the television shows do not compromise Bryan’s paper in peer review. The show is purely entertainment and as I said before, we had no control over it. So the concerns of some people who think that results revealed in the show are leaks from the paper are unfounded. We kept things quiet for so long, why would we suddenly “leak” anything? We are a professional organization and adhere to the proper scientific process."
... Again, the results of the documentary series were of the samples from the very beginning of the study. A study that around about now should be coming to a close. This is called the Oxford-Lausanne Collateral Hominid Project.
'Not living in the real world' is denying a source you invest total faith in when it suits you.
Try to relax, your safe little world hasn't taken a tumble just yet.
Lol. You assume that because some results haven't been released it therefore means those results are therefore bigfoot?
DeleteWow I knew you were dumb but damn...
Nope, not at all... I'm saying you cannot deliver any world shaking discoveries and present them to the scientific community in a documentary, this is very basic stuff bro, come on... You need to peer review it.
DeleteWhat's clear; is 12 results at the very start of the study does not cancel out a whole year of research that we don't know of.
Christ on a bike... You know when you're talking to a child.
But don't you see that is why you fail epically?
DeleteYou are using that as an argument for bigfoot existing even before you know the results.
Can't you see that makes you look like a moron?
The only moron is the one losing track of a thread.
DeleteYou suggested Sykes debunked Bigfoot... I showed you reality. I don't know what Sykes' long term results are, but his Hominid study is being peer reviewed and doesn't stop at a documentary that you got a rush of blood over.
Closure desperation is a bi*ch.
What I use for the existence of Bigfoot are the facts about the evidence there is for it. I'll also use the hominid study should that deliver.
Siolen.
PJ, you don't even truthfully know what is in peer review or not, nor what the topic at large is. We know for a fact he isolated a unique bear sequence and that is in probability much more interesting than anything he came across. Speculation, it cuts both ways right?
DeleteFact is you have no irrefutable evidence which is why you resort to using Don Meldrum's "track science" and his goofball publication. You must know that honorary board actualy have nothing to do with the inner workings of that online journal, right? They don't approve or scratch topics, they don't edit content, they don't take part in some professional peer review process.
No way, never, your intelligence has failed you!!!
DeleteWrong again Danny!
DeleteI do know, because the person who so reliably delivered Zana 100% modern human results to the world stated that it's three studies in one... What Bigfoot is, Zana, and Living Bigfoot/human hybrids. Fact.
And no Danny... Look at the list of board members and sweat to your heart's content... Their names wouldn't be there if the research had not gone through them. Wildlife biology and forensic science doesn't stop being effective when it suits you either... When you have one of the best forensic specialists the US has produced and a former wildlife biology advisor to the UN endorsing legitimate sources of evidence; hard to debunk.
PJ got smoked by Sykes.
DeleteAs the stories go on and on and on and on with out ANY darn proof.......
ReplyDeleteThe stories go on, eyewitnesses accumilate, the physical evidence roles in and we have top genticists conducting hominid studies.
DeleteSchooled.
And yet still no actual bigfoot anywhere ever. Talk about a self obliteration!
DeleteNothing more self obliterating than someone lacking any real intelligence or argument to dismiss the mounds of evidence attained with consistent scientific method, that constitutes a leaving breathing biped... Other than posting the word 'obliterated'... Which I first posted, I might add.
Delete(Sigh)
Dismiss the mounds of evidence?
DeleteYou do realise there is no evidence right?
But yea you are indeed obliterated.
Dismiss the mounds of evidence?
DeleteYou do realise there is no evidence right?
But yea you are indeed obliterated.
"There is no evidence.... There is no evidence... There is evidence... !!!!!!!!!!"
Delete... Like some sweaty therapy exercise or something. You haven't the intelligence to understand the evidence, let alone come up with a decent argument to counter it, so keep denying for fear of looking silly actually trying to debate it; saves you looking even sillier.
stutterer ^
DeleteAll bigfoot "evidence" put forward can be and has been explained without the need for an undiscovered 9 foot monkey.
DeleteNo, the fallacy deployed has been that because evidence has examples of hoaxing, that it shouldn't be considered... When all sources of evidence can be falsified, even your cherished peer review processes.
DeleteIt doesn't go anywhere near explaning the circumstances the evidence is accumilated under and is rhetorical desperate excuses.
When all sources of evidence have been examined and not even on a single occasion has lead to an actual bigfoot then the conclusion is self evident.
DeleteNo... It's not, becuase you still have the evidence that has been examined that points to something very real leaving it. We also have the eyewitnesses and footage that lends credence to that evidence. You don't have one without the other.
Delete"We can't locate the subject on occasions of examining physical evidence, but have done multiple times (tens of thousands)... Therefore the evidence doesn't count."
Heuristical mess of a thought process, and one that outlines precisely that you haven't the list way idea what tore talking about.
Hey Joe, you are leaving welts! We don't want another visit from the troll protection agency.
DeleteNo it doesn't, PJ, because that "evidence" isn't truly irrefutable evidence. You don't have a single piece of that no matter how hard you wish and click your heels together.
DeleteYou have stories, more stories, some hoaxes, some lies, some misidentification, a lot of dishonesty, and an industry profiting of the non-existence of an animal. After all, you can't prove a negative.
^ Hey Crampz, You are an idiot!!!
Delete^^ Take your Midol, Crampz
DeleteWrong Danny!
DeleteWhen you have evidence confirmed by consistent scientific methods, that have been verified by those who have excelled all others in their respected fields to that point; then simply repeating the same spiel over and over again that there isn't any doesn't change that, especially when there is no source on the planet to contradict those findings in a conclusive enough state to not consider.
No conclusive contrary source = no irrefutable evidence... This is your mindset shared by pseudo skeptics around the world.
You have physical and biological evidence to back up ten thousand years worth of anecdotal and cultural references and nothing you have ever it will ever will change that. Even if it wasn't there, even if none of this was the case... Don't you'd have a negative proof fallacy on your hands.
No matter how many words you post, nothing is shorter than just saying you have no irrefutable evidence for the existence of Sasquatch. Not only is there no legitimate proof of Sasquatch, there is no genetic evidence for you to have an honest claim that bigfoot is 100% modern human.
DeleteConcise and sweet.
You always gloss over how much I would love Sasquatch to be proven as a flesh and blood creature, I did get into the field as a fence sitting believer after all. Scientists would kill for the recognition of documenting a previously unknown hominid.
I just like raining on your parade of lies, because I believe you are a dishonest person and I don't like you. You should be proud, you're on a small list, I get along with most people. Even Mulder's crazy a** if you can believe that.
Still doesn't debunk dermals, hair and footage for a start Danny Boy! After all that... After how many gazillion times you post "there is no evidence, la-la-la-la-la", we still have it with reputable scientists backing it and no means to not consider it. And especially not from you.
DeleteMy equation up top summed up not only your lack of being able to understand consistent scientific method, but your failure to deliver a conclusive blow to the evidence I will celebrate at your efforts and expense.
You got in the field and weren't good enough or lucky enough to get a glimpse of what tens of thousands have... Tip; get more than a few yards off the road. Scientists are too afraid to commit to anything remotely close to Sasquatch for their careers, this is common knowledge, it takes someone as regime challenging as Sykes to do that.
You rain on nothing. You have to prove me wrong to rain on anything. You chase me around for one reason only Danny, and we all know that reason. I don't follow you around because I take comfort in what I write to you puts your logic away quite comfortably very regularly.
Two words;
Butt hurt.
(And we still have out evidence).
; )
I've got band practice... I'll be back later.
plays the skinflute..^^
DeleteA billion times over, when will you acknowledge that you understand the point I make? It's the same thing every day because you seem to be oblivious to yourself. Dermals are not refutable, even with your Jimmy. You have inconclusive hairs, morphological testing only works on known hair and isn't 100% conclusive itself. Footage does not catalogue a species.
DeleteAnything short of conclusive blood, saliva, or some form of irrefutable biological evidence is not going to be recognized because it fails to reach the standard necessary to catalogue a previously undocumented species.
As for the rest of your ad hominem, bravo on making an even bigger ass of yourself.
Dermals that transition decades and States with same species traits found 50 miles into wilderness areas.
DeleteUnknown primate hair confirmed by primatologists & wildlife biologists... Multiple examples of it with species traits and morphological consistency means it cannot be hoaxed or from any known animal, found near tracks and sightings.
Footage can go some way in the accumulation of all sources required to help verify a new species.
Any normal situation in recognizing another biological subject is simply not comparable to a subject that has evaded civilization this long and does not warrant conventional means of learning the answers and is therefore very different to any before... It is in fact the denial of this very concept that prevents any such circumstance be accepted by the pseudo skeptics that think they have all the answers.
It's the concept that's too much for them to handle.
If nothing was there, then it wouldn't leave tracks and people wouldn't see them... The buck doesn't stop there because the answer to what is happening hasn't been pursued. Using a refusal to participate and a ridiculing body as a shield for no type specimen, doesn't erode the genuine scientific evidence there is.
And the world's best geneticists finally get asking.
It doesn't matter, Joe, Dermals will never solve not prove anything unless you already have something scientifically studied to correspond them with. It's not concrete.
DeleteThe only concrete proof is blood, saliva, a type specimen. Anything short of that, anything, and it's not worth the breathe it takes to say it in the scientific world. It's just another allegation without hard evidence.
Look, there has been 50 years of modern research and there is still nothing to physically bring us closer to Sasquatch. It's always soon, on it's way, magical, spiritual, degraded, bear, opossum, or not meant to be.
And I wouldn't call Sykes the "world's best geneticist." He's prominent for sure, but not the utmost respected in the field. You should remember Tzeith bringing up his Eve timeline which has recently come under much scrutiny again. He's far from being unblemished.
But what will you do if and when he gives you nothing for bigfoot? What will you hang on next? The new Erickson project? Maybe a new Ketchum. Perhaps you'll say Sykes had to cover up his true results because the UK gov got to him.
That's actually very wrong, Danny boy.
DeleteTracks are what wildlife biologists conduct much of their research on. Whilst academics like Anna Nekaris state that there is a branch of wildlife biology that classifies new species by the tracks they leave. Add a complex application of forensic scientific methods, a study of dermal ridges that outline a species that has not been applied to any other subject of wildlife biology (and therefore far more profound a result), then you at the very least, have 'something' that is undeniably leaving such a physical source.
Pair this with sightings and hair accumilation from the same source, sometimes in the exact same instance, then it is in fact unscientific and grossly denialist to at the very least, consider 'something' is going on.
You don't classify anything by these methods, but you are very close to something as profound as you like and is worth the breathe it takes to say it in the scientific world. Not another allegation when you have science backing it... Your very intermediate understanding of what constitutes scientific evidence, a 'science' denies methods and data short of type specimen, is as far from science as you can get.
I really enjoy pointing this out to you, could do it all day in fact, it makes me smile and warm inside.
For 50 years, for over two thirds of that time the field was looking for a bipedal gorilla, WHILST STILL managing to accumilate a steady source of evidence. I can list this for you till the cows come home, it's there and there's no lengths of denial you can spew that will make it go away. Now that the Internet has pushed this field on light years, we have better understanding of what this subject is and have too geneticists conducting hominid studies.
Ummmm... As great and as clued up Tzieth is, Sykes literally wrote the book on mitochondrial DNA, regardless of his theories and timelines, he's the best around.
I'm confident Sykes has something attributed to Sasquatch... I can't be totally sure but I'm confident. If he doesn't have anything by the end of this study, I know for a fact that he'll keep plucking away, he's associating with Bigfoot enthusiasts and DNA will be isolated and categorised as a legitimate species in the end. Genticists are only ever as good as their samples. Erikson's documentary was meant to be field changing and in willing to wait for that also.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThen why the hell do you people constantly visit this site? Don't you have anything better to do?
ReplyDeleteWhy do people like comedy?
Delete^ Your mom had a good sense of humor
DeleteI do have better things to do. But I am drunk and lazy and you footers provide much laughter.
DeleteDid he also make the boobs or were added later with CG?
ReplyDeleteGod made boobs. Thanks, God.
DeleteGood made them and sometimes a doctor enhances them
DeleteHe should have stuck to cigarettes.
ReplyDeleteDid Bob Hieronimus ever demonstrate the suit?
ReplyDeleteIf the 'Suit' was the Property of Roger Patterson, and the 'Suit' shown was/is a recreation, then that does not add up.
Where's the Original 'Suit'?
The 'Original' 'Suit' should be shown and someone should be able to 'Recreate' the Movements (Which are 'unnatural' for Humans) Convincingly over rough terrain while wearing that 'Original' 'Suit'.
I would be interested in seeing such a demonstration.
Keep in mind, the size that the 'Suit' needs to be (8' to 9' tall), and the person in the 'Suit' needs to perform flawlessly, being well practiced to walk smoothly on loose stones and rough terrain with shoe sizes of 13 to 15.
A Performance such as that would convince Me that it was a man in a suit, or it being a Cryptid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson-Gimlin_film
DeleteThe 'Suit' (if that is the case) was created prior to 1967, and the Technology to build such a 'Suit' was 'Non-Existent'. A Loose 'Monkey-Suit' would be the Best they could create, which would have shown 'Folds' and 'Creases', Not Muscles, because they could not 'Stretch' or 'Form' over any type of 'Under-Body' suit.
Look up 'Monkey Suits/Costumes' from the 60's.
The 'Technology' did Not exist to create something so Realistic.
No need. You just need to film another one of these "creek strollers" and it's a done deal. You can't and you never will because they are not a real species. Patty is mearly a one off creation of Rogers.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSgIciThz6Y
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXvj_RWz_wU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgfaLRqWnjY
... Got monkey suit?
Got brain?
DeleteYes... One that deals with child like versions quite often in fact.
DeleteNOPE!
ReplyDeleteWhy didn't they re create the video with the replica of the ''suit'' used by Patterson for the pgf film? Since he was the man in the suit he shouldn't have a problem recreating it to a T!!!
ReplyDeleteThey actually put Heironimus in the suit and it was so pathetic that they cut it from the newcast.
DeleteLiars wear sunglasses on cloudy days. This is a good example of how desperate people are, who have never achieved anything in the lives. Finally, they have a chance to be somebody and all they have to do is tell the same lie over and over again.
ReplyDeletelike patterson
DeleteOK, I have to do it guys, I'm sorry to have to break this world shattering news here on this site today but I am the guy who actually made trhe suit and wore it for Gimlin and Patterson to film. I have kept the secret for all these years because i was paid $1000 to do so.
ReplyDeleteAnd this is exactly why the suit in the picture looks nothing like Patty. He never did and he can't today.
ReplyDeleteBoth those dooshbags Bob H and P Morris were/are hoaxers trying to bandwagon on PG film and make a buck or get anyone who'll listen to their lies.
ReplyDelete"As it turns out, some of the Yakima residents who were quoted by Greg Long in his book now say their stories and comments about Roger were distorted in his book. They say Long seemed to be on a mission to make Roger Patterson out to be a petty criminal.
ReplyDeleteRoger was an unsophisticated cowboy, but a highly motivated, multi-skilled cowboy with big aspirations. Only a few years after obtaining the footage he was diagnosed with terminal cancer. He died in 1972, at the age of 46. Apparently (and not surprisingly) Roger had not repaid all his personal debts, or completed all his planned projects, or returned all his borrowed items, before his cancer put him into the bed where he eventually died.
People who die of cancer in their prime of life often leave behind a lot of loose ends and debts. Does that make them petty criminals? Greg Long would have you think so.
Greg Long told folks around Yakima that Roger Patterson made a heap of money from the famous footage, and he (Greg Long) wanted to find anyone who was owed money by Patterson ... or who would otherwise bear witness against him, as Long claimed everybody in town was doing .... For example, Bob Hieronimous claims Roger owed him $1,000 for wearing the costume in the footage ..."
The plain and simple fact that for every person people claim makes money off Bigfoot... There is a money grabbing fraud on the opposite side of the fence making money off helping pathetic clowns sleep better at night.
Delete.---.
Delete,' `.
;;'-------':.
,;: -o` o` :::
,::'; .--(_)-.:::.
:::::( __ )::::.
`:'`' \_____/ ;'`';_
-hrr- \ V / \
^ pathetic clown with a good nights sleep
DeleteOk after reading this thread I have to say that the believers in the possible of a unknown bipedal hominid won this battle.The naysayers had a few good points but resorted to silly name calling and some silly responses. Good job joe fitzgerald and the others that stated there case. Now I ask the question to the naysayers, Why cant a creature like the Sasquatch be real? I would like you to state your case with the backing of scientific proof that there is no way that it can not exist and then let the believers scrutinize all your evidence. I think it can be approached in a respectful organized manor and it can be a point by point debate. This should be good . I dont see any real skeptic taking this on without resorting to some sorta witty ignorant comment. The true is we dont know enough about the past of all the bipedal hominids that have walked the earth and have probably not even found all of them yet. Here is something to think about, Of all the primates that have walked the planet which is over 7 billion humans alone and god knows how many other hominids and there family tree. how many bones and fossils of them have we found and of them how many of them were of the whole body? There are new findings all the time that force us to change our ideas on the world. Some are real big and other things that are small but our views are changed regardless. So with that being said let the debate continue and this time lets have the naysayers prove the believers wrong with the scientific proof they say is there to make there point. I have not found it and would love to go read it and test it so I will finally know everything =)
ReplyDeleteyou are a fanatic. nothing said or presented will be enough for you.
Deletemy point made =)
Delete