the Patterson Gimlin film: the only LEGIT Bigfoot film?

Burden I am so glad that science is an open and shut case for you. What do you do for a living? read childrens books?

EXACTLY WHERE IN SCIENCE does it say PGF is fake? In your middle school earth science book?

The breast issue was talked about by some other well respected scientist and it was agreed 15 years ago that that would have been VERY difficult
to do. The only thing insane is YOU. The only thing LAUGHABLE is your intellect.

UNTIL you start quoting real scientists about this film you dont even deserve to have a forum. And that doesnt include your comic books either.
You need to get a life man. SERIOUSLY The one who thinks that scientists cant believe in God. You are a tool.
Nothing more nothing less.

You start stating some FACTS with references or your'e NOTHING BUT A BLOWHARD!!!! Either that or youre the superintendent at South Central LA elementary school system

ok ok I am bored, so lets entertain for a second that the PGF is real....

You have to admit, patterson could well be the luckiest guy to ever have lived!

I mean what are the chances of filming a female bigfoot that looks exactly like what you previously drew in a book? Incredible!

And what are the chances of that happening on the 1 week when you had a camera and went to find bigfoot? Incredible!

And what are the chances that nothing like this has ever happened again with anyone, anywhere, ever? Incredible!

BurdenOfProof wrote:ok ok I am bored, so lets entertain for a second that the PGF is real....

You have to admit, patterson could well be the luckiest guy to ever have lived!

I mean what are the chances of filming a female bigfoot that looks exactly like what you previously drew in a book? Incredible!

And what are the chances of that happening on the 1 week when you had a camera and went to find bigfoot? Incredible!

And what are the chances that nothing like this has ever happened again with anyone, anywhere, ever? Incredible!

Are you saying that seeing a full body open area walking bigfoot has never happened to anyone else?
The question you need to ask more so is.
What other evidence do you even believe for a slight chance. What evidence have you seen that you just won't write off a man in suit? My bet at present their is not one piece of evidence that you will not say is a man in suit.
What about the Shooting incident? Do you believe that happened? How many people have seen something but not reported it.
Don't forget more an more people seem to be releasing older things they had captured on film. I think shows like animal planets finding bigfoot are helping people realize that they aren't always going to be laughed at if they tell their story or show the photos they took.

I will believe the shooting story as soon as some evidence is available.

So far there is none.

As with all bigfoot stories.

BurdenOfProof wrote:I will believe the shooting story as soon as some evidence is available.

So far there is none.

As with all bigfoot stories.

What evidence are you looking for?
Hasn't there been pictures of the "flesh" taken from one.
Hasn't there been talk how flesh was given to the DNA researcher as well as Oxford University.
What is the evidence you want to see?

Edit:
Bigfoot Stories
What about all the foot print evidence verified by several scientists that it is some kinda of Ape/human like creature that made them?

yes as always theres lots of talk..... but no evidence

What evidence?
What is it that you will accept as solid evidence of this creature?

Obviously footprints don't work or Images or anything like that so what is it?

The same standard of evidence used to verify any other species on this planet.

yep that would be perfectly acceptable

g

Let's see a video of a sasquatch giving birth in a stick structure birthing station or seeing a troop of males run down kill and eat a deer. That would be a pretty high standard of evidence. The pgf however is not.

im not convinced one way or the other. but when i watch the film , it seems like a real animal, like it has life. not like all the other films and pictures where people are trying to act like animals

Some forensic scientists did a study on the PGF and they did a bunch of motion analysis. They came to the conclusion a human cant walk like that. Not only that the muscular nature of the legs while walking were deemed not to be possibly seen in a suit like that. There appears to be an injury to the right leg and you can see the fur moving in an irregular way, also not conducive to a suit. Bill Munn was a highly recruited costume maker from Hollywood and he did a study showing that the costume couldnt have been made in 1967. Expand your horizons and read the Munn report.
Forensic scientists have looked at this over and over and generally the conclusion if that is IS faked its one of the best hoaxes in history.
A modern costume maker tried making a suit to show how easy it is to fake it. THAT was laughably bad.
The butt crack and the breasts are two of the things that make this just impossible to do in 1967 and it would have been horribly expensive and Patterson didnt have a ton of money. The camera they use was RENTED not owned.
Other scientists think that the reason Patterson and Gimlin got the footage was because the were on horseback and the human scent was masked by the horses catching the bigfoot off guard.
There is No Academy of Sciences Bigfoot Film division that decides this was faked or hoaxed. You either accept it or you dont. To dismiss everyone who thinks its a good piece of evidence as stupid is just wrong.

g

Sure we can make better bigfoot suits now these days in this day and age.
Lets go back in the time this was made it the makeup and costuming just wasn't at that level yet we have.
I mean Rick Baker one of the foremost monkey suit makeup artists when you go back an look at his King Kong it still looks fake it looks good but its nothing like his Planet of the apes makeups.
To compare the film to what can be made now is not accurate you have to compare it to what was being made back then and moving forward to see what was made shortly after the time frame.

It's never been recreated, why? It's no suit, simple as that Roger wasn't smart or rich enough plus every Hollywood Bigfoot flick is laughable compared to Patty. I've also mentioned in another thread partly why I'm positive it's real but is it the only legit footage, no it's not. Freeman's I'd say is real too nor did he have the means to fake it, and of course the Marble Mountain clip is genuine too in my opinion. No hiker, too tall and typical Bigfoot gait/behavior/build all the way. Especially taking Mr. Ostman's detailed words into account he basically described his Bigfoot family like we see the other subjects, so using levelheaded common sense here - I expect the same approach from skeptics in return - I'd say de facto we have it a confirmed living species at least photographically. What precisely they are remains to be seen but going with unknown hominin so far.

This is a good review of the film
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=MKUwdHex1Zs

BurdenOfProof wrote:

"I mean what are the chances of filming a female bigfoot that it looks exactly like what you previously drew in a book? Incredible!

And what are the chances of that happening on the 1 week when you had a camera and went to find bigfoot? Incredible!

And what are the chances that nothing like this has ever happened again with anyone, anywhere, ever? Incredible!" To add on to this, i'm not sure if he/she meant it, but how come every "clip" shows a male BF?

Anyway, I'd like to back this up as great statements that are worthy of real answers instead of being completely ignored. But no believer out there can answer them without concluding he must be the luckiest man alive.

Blogfoot wrote:BurdenOfProof wrote:

"I mean what are the chances of filming a female bigfoot that it looks exactly like what you previously drew in a book? Incredible!

And what are the chances of that happening on the 1 week when you had a camera and went to find bigfoot? Incredible!

And what are the chances that nothing like this has ever happened again with anyone, anywhere, ever? Incredible!" To add on to this, i'm not sure if he/she meant it, but how come every "clip" shows a male BF?

Anyway, I'd like to back this up as great statements that are worthy of real answers instead of being completely ignored. But no believer out there can answer them without concluding he must be the luckiest man alive.

But see it has happened to others. The problem is people don't want to believe it has. IE: its just a man in a suit.
So to say it doesn't happen is not accurate account. Its do you believe that others have filmed or shown the same.
It will always be well they JUST happen to be in the woods with a Camera and they JUST happen to catch a big foot.
Yet everyone screams for Photos and film so what the hell are people Suppose to DO.
You damn them if they don't and damn them if they do.
Sorry if you go about that way then of course people don't want to show anything.
They will be wrong either way.

Exactly. If u think about it, Patterson WAS lucky, but he PUT HIMSELF in the right place and time by staying in that area where sightings had occurred. If memory serves, they were there for a few days. So yes, they were lucky, but they increased their odds of seeing one by targeting that area

Patterson also told stories of being chased by bigfoot and bigfoot flipping his car. Why do you believers continue to make excuses for this conman?

CMcMillan wrote:
I mean Rick Baker one of the foremost monkey suit makeup artists when you go back an look at his King Kong it still looks fake it looks good but its nothing like his Planet of the apes makeups.

It looks nothing like John Chamber's Planet of the apes makeup either - you really don't need to pay attention to all that detail when you plan on filming with a K-100 from a distance. Gemora made better suits, and that was years before Baker.

BurdenOfProof wrote:Patterson also told stories of being chased by bigfoot and bigfoot flipping his car. Why do you believers continue to make excuses for this conman?

Goes good with his bent stirrup story.

Hucksterfoot wrote:

CMcMillan wrote:
I mean Rick Baker one of the foremost monkey suit makeup artists when you go back an look at his King Kong it still looks fake it looks good but its nothing like his Planet of the apes makeups.

It looks nothing like John Chamber's Planet of the apes makeup either - you really don't need to pay attention to all that detail when you plan on filming with a K-100 from a distance. Gemora made better suits, and that was years before Baker.

But John Chambers didn't make it did he?
we have 3 stories of WHO made it.
John Chambers (in his death bed said he didn't make it wasn't involved and when they asked Rick Baker about it he admitted he was wrong that Chambers never said he made it)
Phillip Morris (A one Piece costume with a zipper)
Bob Heironimus (saying that the suit was homemade from some skinned animal like a bear, described it as a 2 piece costume No zipper)

SO the skeptics have just as many excused for the film and the suit as the believers.

GT3Paul wrote:Burden I am so glad that science is an open and shut case for you.
The breast issue was talked about by some other well respected scientist and it was agreed 15 years ago that that would have been VERY difficult
to do. The only thing insane is YOU. The only thing LAUGHABLE is your intellect.

What is laughable is that you forgot to source that scientific consensus ...otherwise it sounds like a big argument from authority.

GT3Paul wrote:UNTIL you start quoting real scientists about this film you dont even deserve to have a forum.

GT3Paul wrote:SERIOUSLY The one who thinks that scientists cant believe in God.

They can, though, many are atheists.

GT3Paul wrote:You start stating some FACTS with references

How about some Bigfoot facts with references. Like your so-called gait that can't be replicated fact?