Someone Claims to Have Roger Patterson's Confession Diary


Take a good look at that creature above. Does that look like a costume to you? Roger Patterson filmed the creature as it was walking away. This was in 1967. Some people believe Patterson may have hoaxed the footage. One person has came forward and claims to have proof that it was a hoax. Patterson allegedly has a diary, and some how this person got a hold of it. Is this person tell the truth? Or is this person another attention seeker? Henry May explains:




Comments

  1. Just don't get to close to his mouth

    ReplyDelete
  2. Henry sounds a little drunk there. Perhaps it's because...

    http://i.imgur.com/TnMdYhE.gifv

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes it looks like a costume to me.

    Ridiculous breasts attached to the stomach.

    Ridiculous diaper butt and turtle shell legs.

    Ridiculous gun turret upper body turn.

    Ridiculous thigh subduction.

    Ridiculous shoulder pads.

    Ridiculous clown feet induced shin rise angle.

    Diary or no diary, its a bloke in a suit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bill Munns says there is a suit. We now have a diary that exposes the hoax.

      Checkmate footers.

      Delete
    2. Actually, just to be clear, when I refer to this thing, I usually write "the suit" in quotes to characterize that I am quoting another person who says its a suit. I haven't seen it for myself so I cannot say it is with true certainty. I am confident there really is something, yes, and i am equally confident it is connected to the PGF saga in some way. But that's as much as I will allow even myself to speculate about, until such time as I actually see this thing for myself.

      I'm going to make an effort to see it, I have a plan, and the plan is being run by some other people who's support I need to accomplish this. That's where it stands. But as to the plan, since the suit isn't at a Burger King, I can't have it my way and just walk in and have a look.

      Bill

      http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/36334-suit-possibly-key-to-final-hoax-proof/page-2

      Checkmate.

      Delete
    3. 9.18 - why always anonymous? Afraid to put your name to your comments which are not even fit to wipe my hairy, scarred arse with?

      If you don't believe in Bigfoot, disappear! You're nothing but a stupid troll who probably hasn't started shaving yet.

      Idiots.

      Oh. And hi Joe! Hope you're okay buddy.

      RPP

      Delete
    4. "It is acknowledged that the possibility of a fur costume is not absolutely excluded from consideration by this analysis, but that if the PGF hominid were in fact a human in a fur costume, such a costume, and the padding underneath that fur cloth, must have been tailored with expert skill and deliberate design to achieve the effect of these contours of the skin and adipose of an aging and overweight female hominid (and disregarding other aspects of anatomy such as limb proportions, kinematics of the foot, proportions of the head that contradict the man-in-a-fur-suit hypothesis, which will be addressed elsewhere). In 1967, such skill in tailoring furcloth was rare and the few practitioners who had such skills were in the highest echelon of professional craftspeople, and were veterans of the film/theatrical industry. The man who filmed the PGF hominid, Roger Patterson, had no such skills and had no proven connection or association with any person of such skills. Nor did he have documented financial means to employ such persons to work on his behalf. Furthermore, the costumes of the era (1967) were either intended for comical theatrics, in which case little attention was paid to anatomical realism, or when such costumes were intended for dramatic theatrical ventures where realism was required, they were designed to portray powerful, threatening or frightening creatures, dynamic and athletic in form. Therefore, a superbly realistic costume designed to look like an aging and slightly overweight female has no precedent in costume design for that era, or even in the decades that followed. Therefore, purely from a standpoint of consideration of the PGF hominid’s anatomy, as compared to both actual human surface anatomy and great ape anatomy, and further compared to fur costume design and form, the
      resemblance to real anatomy is not only apparent but prevails as the more probable explanation for the nature of the PGF hominid. These observations support the conclusion that we are not observing a costume, but rather a real and novel hominid whose body has a modest natural hair coat."
      - Bill Munns

      http://wwww.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf

      ... We've checked, remember?

      Hey Rich buddy!!!

      Delete
    5. Oh... And 10:53... If you actually open the link I provided, you'll see photogpraphs that obliterate your original comment up top, whilst big clown feet are an impossibility considering you have extended toes in the step.

      We checked.

      Delete
    6. The only diary's that matter are old settlers diary's and the one i got hold of written by Rogers horse who say's Patty's real and horses don't lie xx

      Delete
    7. There no such thing as a bigfoot, where's the evidence? You know how I KNOW there's no such thing as a bigfoot? Because I say so that's how, I totally disregard any and all of the proof or pics or footprints or casts OF footprints, no vocalizations, no ancient reports of dead or living bodies captured, no stories of deathbed confessions by Roger Patterson, no PGF, no Bill Munns sworn statements because if I don't agree with an expert's opinion why then I'll just make up my OWN quotes and say he said it, you know why? BECAUSE THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A BIGFOOT-that's why.

      Delete
    8. So apparently stating facts is trolling?

      Poor poor form.

      Delete
    9. Well Richard ( dick ) porter I happen to think that a hairy fella may just be a reality. However I don't think that patty is real.just my opinion it's just way to convenient how that all occurred.now if you want to believe that it is real more power to you.but name calling is a bit obnoxious. And Joe..all your cut and paste offers of proof..well it's like espn statisticians they can make any random off base thing look like the holy grail..your good at putting the round peg in the square hole...but the evidence for a human/ape/alien is weak at best there is nothing more that I would like than to find out the truth...lot's of money to be made...but then again there is a sucker born every minute!

      Delete
    10. Joes paranoia is eating away at him. The 2nd anon there is not the same anon. Joe literally can't comprehend that more than 1 person doesn't believe in bigfoot. That's the calibre of person we are dealing with.

      Delete
    11. Nwah Barnum! You're very welcome to have a go at the evidence thing with me, whenever you like.

      11:45... I really couldn't care how many Anon's their are, you're one collective mindset anyhow.

      Delete
    12. EVA R. Pretty sensible girl. The horse knows. They always know.
      Chuck

      Delete
    13. Hello Chuck,
      Here's a really moving story about a horse and his owner xx
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2827489/Pictured-prime-horse-loving-grandmother-dying-wish-favourite-animal-one-time.html

      Delete
  4. the diary was written by a bloke in a suit
    "dear diary, it's hard to write this considering i'm just a bloke wearing a suit but I really hope that this fools all the footers out there . Today i'm also going to the local store to buy some two-ply toilet paper and some listerine along with the latest issue of people magazine. I hope that Sue is working the cash today. I think she is cute and I have a crush on her. Sometimes i'll buy crap I don't need only to say hi to her. I know she will never find out about my crush on her because of course this diary is private "

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Though I do not agree with you about Patty being a fake--- I have to say that was funny!

      The only reliable diary is the old settlers diary!

      Delete
    2. Hi Chuck ! Hope you have a happy and safe Thanksgiving .... Ruff :)

      Delete
    3. I meant Chick not Chuck... I must have been thinking of Chuck Roast hahah!! ...xoxoxox!! for give me darlin'

      Delete
    4. Right back at ya Ruff! Chuck roast!? Ohh that sounds good on such a cold day! I will have to make some up and send some over to ya lol!! Take care!

      Delete
  5. I confess! It was I who wore the costume, even though I was 5 years old at the time!

    I confess I also wore the horses costumes too!
    My brother who was 3 at the time wore the rifle costume!

    You see how ridiculous this all is. Anybody can ay this, or say that!

    ReplyDelete
  6. When a fat person, starts to sit vertically, he will not live long! You Henry May, will not live pat 50!
    And. . . you will die knowing another fat, lazy nerd will take your place 10-20 years from now, and BIG FOOT will STILL not be proven!

    What a short pathetic life, you will have

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Boy, are you a nasty piece of work. Be sure to thank your mother for helping make the world s little darker.

      Delete
    2. Don't mind him... He's just cranky he gets owned way too regularly for what his moma's financial disposition usually allows him to suffer.

      Delete
    3. I like to come here for a good laugh but today guys... its been pretty mean.

      Delete
    4. Over the line bro....Thats saying alot around here....

      Delete
    5. Out of curiosity, at what angle should a fat-man sit to maximize life-expectancy ?

      Delete
  7. Chautaugua Legislators Hear Plea To Put Bigfoot On Endangered Species List Buffalo News

    Peter Wiemer is leading a grassroots movement to give Bigfoot protection on the Endangered Species list, but judging from the reactions of his local Chautaugua, New York legislators he's got a long way to go. " “You’re not going to be looked at as being crazy,” said Wiemer, who spoke during the public portion of the meeting when citizens are given a chance to address the legislature. Some of the lawmakers rolled their eyes, while others covered their mouths, perhaps to hold back their laughter."

    ReplyDelete
  8. i don't need no sticky diary. anyone with anything between their ears can tell you its a bloke in a suit. however its not a total lost if you look back in the trees you can see a warble then possum lady appears.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Henry May lives in a shed behind his mothers house. Who voted him spokesman for the bigfoot community. This Fat Slob Makes T-Fats look like a runway model

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^ so what you are saying is TFAT's turns u on?

      Delete
  10. And 942 idiots subscribe to this twinkie inhaling fat slob

    ReplyDelete
  11. Please remove the chunk o' chaw from your mouth when speaking to the camera.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ive watched 2 videos today in which the fat guys talking in them looked like they may die before the video was even finished.

    ReplyDelete
  13. What's with joes obsession with monkey suits? Every post he's asking about monkey suits. Maybe you should go buy one if you're that obsessed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There would be a suit if it was fake...fake breasts, pics, video, something?
      Didn't Biscardi claim to have the suit, looked nothing like Patty. No one can re create it either? Diary...LOL

      Delete
    2. Because screw the Diary, produce the fake suit!
      looks the best ever and we all want know what the boobs were made of.
      Oh that's right, it was destroyed...

      Delete
    3. Who would want to destroy a suit that was an SFX masterpiece, duping all known fur cloth techniques for the next 47 years?

      11:42... How do you test the premise that it's organic tissue?

      Delete
    4. Because Joe takes the easy way out of this. He knows that the monkey suit was more than likely destroyed(if they were smart) and thinks that by someone not being able to produce it or reproduce it proves that. He just turns everything back around on the source in short. It could just as easily be countered with "got original film" or "got specimen". It boils down to the basis of his argument and the absurdity of his claims. He is playing within his game and knows what to say to try and lure people into his game that cant be won. For instance this diary. Were it to be confirmed, the same day someone with a PHD in Sports Science or something will find a few letters that aren't written the same way and that will be enough evidence its fake for the people here. They aren't seeking to disprove anything, other than skeptical comments. You only have to look at the credibility of the sources involved to see that these people are not worthy of engaging. And by engaging with them you are playing into their game that they know they can win because they play it everyday. And no point in debating someone full of excuses, who changes definitions to suit their needs. Like the time Joe literally took the definition of psuedo science and pasted it after skeptic and presented that as the definition of skeptic. And the people here buy that because they lack the intelligence to understand what hes talking about anyway. Hes playing to his level, on terms he knows he can win. Thats why he engages people here on this blog, playing to his level. He has WAY more spare time on his hands than you do.

      Delete
    5. Lack of treacable lost footage, does not irradicate available data = your excuse

      Lack of type specimen = negative proof fallacy

      Lack of monkey suit after 47 years of SFX advances (accompanied with physical and biological evidence to support) = your problem, not mine

      Credibility issues = show us

      Definition or principles? Go check the definition of 'Psuedo' kiddo!

      ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

      Delete
  14. Bill even states in his paper that the costume could have been made by an expert.

    How is that proof that patty is real?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/strange-creatures/bigfoot2.htm

      Delete
    2. Dermals found to be in actual tracks = no fake feet.

      PGF = got monkey suit?

      All the rest was old news, cynical rubbish, naive of every source of evidence there actually is.

      Glad I could help.

      Delete
    3. Joe, someone as interested in this subject as you should know that there are no dermals in the tracks from the film site. I am surprised you didn't know that....
      Anyway, proponents do claim the casts indicate the prints were made by a dynamic foot(i.e a mid-tarsel break, they look natural etc..). Also, they seem to match the bottom of the subjects foot, which can be clearly viewed in several frames...
      One of the few points of agreements between debunkers and believers is that a mime could not have left the tracks that were cast and seen in the compilation short of the footprints in the ground: the tracks were either left by a large primate or Roger created them after filming an actor. ..
      Have a good one....

      Delete
    4. Who has said that there were dermals in the PGF film site?

      I apologise, my comment may have come across like I was blurring subjects.

      Delete
    5. Ok, I guess I misread....thnaks...

      Delete
  15. When we have a good number of industry experts saying it could easily be a man in a suit, we can say with reasonable confidence it is more than likely a man in a suit
    http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/another-possible-sasquatch-filmed-near.html?m=0

      Check out my comments here for help with that.

      Delete
  16. No Chain of Custody on any alleged diary. It is highly unlikely that any diary of Roger Patterson remained unknown for all this time and now surfaces. Within the last year, MK Davis announced that he had the gun that killed the Bigfoot at the Bigfoot massacre. Look for another bold faced lie to come out within the next year, just like clockwork. Have you every heard of a tough cowboy, having a diary? He would have to be the very first one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If anything, there may be some notes for, or a draft of, another book..He did publish a book, so its not hard to imagine him writing another....

      Delete
  17. I feel bad for Henry May and all the mean stuff people have been saying about him .
    I happen to believe the Patterson film to be real . If it is a fake it's a fantastic job and his family could probably stand to make quite a bit telling that story. I still haven't heard any credible evidence of it being fake outside of some yokel claiming to have been the guy in a suit and now a mysterious diary that may not even exist other than in word.
    Even if the film was a fake it doesn't mean that bigfoot does not exist . You'd have to discount all the witnesses over the years and I really doubt they could all be lying or mistaken in what they saw.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yes, they are all mistaken or lying. proof of what the bigfoot phenomenon is has been around for ages. the footers just refuse the proof. it doesnt matter that every single claim ever made that was resolved came back to be people either lying or mistaken identity. that is your bigfoot. there is no large hairy primate out there. except henry in his chair. he's a great example of bigfoot.

      Delete
    2. ^^^ btw if you don't believe that to be true, show ONE example that has been resolved differently. I challenge you.

      Delete
    3. If you are a serious enthusiast then you have heard credible evidence of a hoax. For example, the proven fact that it was not possible to develop home movie footage in less than 48 hours by the means available to the general public. Is that proof of a hoax? Of course not, but it is a problem and therefore evidence of a hoax...

      Delete
    4. If you take time to analyse the accepted timeline, on the Friday...

      "Patterson and Gimlin leave Bluff Creek and drive to Eureka, CA, to send the film via airplane to Yakima, WA, to be processed."

      This would give ample time for the film to be processed. If the processing machine in Yakima was already running there would have been no need to "fire it up" on Saturday. Possibly DeAtely had an arrangement with this "friend" to develop any film Roger came up with "under the table".

      Delete
    5. "yes, they are all mistaken or lying."

      Who has the bigger stake in mistaken or lying? A group of people backed by ten thousand years of native culture, with people who consist of wildlife biologists, costume experts, forensic experts, forensic artists, forestry officers, doctors, lawyers, police officers, teachers, psychologists, historians, anthropologists, primatologists... Or little old uneducated, unqualified, anonymous you, 2:51, who still hasn't proved any of his points?

      "it doesnt matter that every single claim ever made that was resolved came back to be people either lying or mistaken identity."

      Really? Millions of people must have missed this proposition, by the hands of whom did this happen? Hey... I'll remind you to provide me with an answer for this next time your essays pop up.

      "there is no large hairy primate out there. except henry in his chair."

      Well unfortunately for you, dear boy, you've got to show that the physical & biological evidence to support the wealth of anecdotal isn't what it is first, to show a little integrity for once.

      "^^^ btw if you don't believe that to be true, show ONE example that has been resolved differently. I challenge you."

      What the challege of scientific debate states is necassary, (not that you are capable of that level anyway) is that should you fail to test the evidence adequately and to a conclusion that reinforces your premise, then the default position is that the evidence presented stands... And you have many instances of Sasquatch. And you still haven't proved any of your points.

      Delete
    6. That is a possible valid explanation Joe... It concedes the reality that the film cannot have been developed by ordinary means....

      Delete
  18. For those of you that say its a suit, perfect breasts swinging with pure gravitational force, calf muscles protruding from the skin, perfectly measured toes on bottom of the foot, have to be amongst the most uneducated group of people who are still capable of using the English language. Albeit with a spell checker. I am going to guess, and I would LOVE to see this study, those who think its a suit either NEVER have taken a biological sciences class above Kindergarten, or have never taken ANY class above basket weaving above community college. Because there is NO WAY you can have any rudimentary knowledge of biology or anatomy and then declare that the people in the mid 60's (while planet of the apes was being filmed with masks where the lips didnt even move) made one of the most anatomically correct costume of the millennium!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You cannot be serious. People who would say it is a suit would include, say, every member of Harvard's Department of Anthropology ...LOL....

      Delete
    2. ... But most certainly not, a pair of breasts.

      Good comment Average Joe. you are far from average, sir.

      Delete
    3. I'd just for once like to see a link provided when these troll make their usual blanket statements of non facts 8:33 says that "every member of Harvard's Department of Anthropology" has stated that it's suit, when, where, show us a link

      Delete
  19. Not yet, Joe. They tell me it's in the mail. I'll keep you updated !

    ReplyDelete
  20. Well....I will go ahead and telll you the final piece of evidence I figured out....I was saving this.......October 20 1967 was a friday. The film was allegedly sent by plane to Yakima on October 21 and developed and shown the first time on October 22 which is Sunday. It was Kodachrome film...which means that only Kodak could have developed it. This is wrong. The film would have had to go to Palo Alto and they didn't work on weekends. Not ever. Kodak labs did not at any time work overtime or on weekends. So this is an impossible scenario and further proof of the lie.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Chambers did build the suit
    http://mrdarksnasty.blogspot.com/2016/01/john-chambers-patterson-gimlin-hoax.html

    ReplyDelete
  22. Chambers also built the Minnesota Iceman which fooled everyone
    http://mrdarksnasty.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-john-chambers-minnesota-iceman.html

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story