Bigfoot News
Bigfoot Evidence
Bigfoot Evidence
RSS feeds


Yahoo! 
MSN 
AOL 
Netvibes 
Bloglines 



the Patterson Gimlin film: the only LEGIT Bigfoot film?

Page 4 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: the Patterson Gimlin film: the only LEGIT Bigfoot film?

Post  CMcMillan on Sat Aug 18, 2012 8:07 pm

StankApe wrote:But I'm not giving a scientific opinion, I'm giving my personal opinion based on lots and lots of discussion and looking. Could I be wrong? Yes, but like Monk says "I don't think so"

The subduction of the thigh, the hairy boobs, the waist movement, the way the fabric ,or wtvr, folds underneath the right thigh. The diaper butt. None of this stuff looks like an animal to me. It all looks like a suit.

What Kinda of suit.
1 Body piece suit 2 piece body suit? seriously which way is it that you see it?
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: the Patterson Gimlin film: the only LEGIT Bigfoot film?

Post  Woodwose on Sat Aug 18, 2012 8:21 pm

I agree Stankape, but when you make claims regarding certainty and scepticism and the scientific method - as I do - then you have to be consistent and apply those things to your own opinion.

Unless you are a qualified primatologist with years of experience and have worked with a team of relevant experts researching the subject, then your estimate makes no sense.

In the same way that we have to evaluate how many bigfoot sightings can be considered credible - ruling out conformation bias and mispercption - we have to do the the same when it comes to sceptisim.

A true sceptic (and I don't mean this in the sense of a 'no true Scotsman') should be scptical about their scepticism.

avatar
Woodwose

Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: the Patterson Gimlin film: the only LEGIT Bigfoot film?

Post  StankApe on Sat Aug 18, 2012 8:28 pm

g


Last edited by StankApe on Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:19 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
StankApe

Posts : 351
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: the Patterson Gimlin film: the only LEGIT Bigfoot film?

Post  CMcMillan on Sat Aug 18, 2012 8:37 pm

StankApe wrote:If i had to give flat out opinion I would say that the majority of the evidence in regards to those involved in the filming of the subject, combined with the lack of any corroborating evidence and the physical anomalies of the subject in regards to all known primates, is that it's probably a fake. I wouldn't put any % on it. It's either a fake or it isn't. Nothing I say is going to change that.

That being said ,unless somebody bags a squatch (and it matches patty) or comes up with the suit. This entire debate is kinda moot as there is probably no resolution to be had.


that being said, i was kinda wasted when i posted that last night. i tend to err on the side of hyperbole when I've been out for rounds with the boys!

i should probably lock my computer up when I leave the house sometimes............

And now the excuse of being drunk and online and posting
Really ??
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: the Patterson Gimlin film: the only LEGIT Bigfoot film?

Post  StankApe on Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:07 pm

g


Last edited by StankApe on Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:20 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
StankApe

Posts : 351
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: the Patterson Gimlin film: the only LEGIT Bigfoot film?

Post  Woodwose on Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:08 pm

Stankape,

I've probably been playing too much of the devil's advocate, but I fully understand where you are coming from.

If we were discussing Nessie I could see myself taking a similar position.

All I'm really trying to say is that if you are a secptic, then the default position means neither believing nor disbelieving. If frustration gets the better of you (I'm thinking of M K Davis) I think it's best to bite your lip and concentrate on how we can falsify any evidence that comes forward....that is after all the scientific method.
avatar
Woodwose

Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: the Patterson Gimlin film: the only LEGIT Bigfoot film?

Post  StankApe on Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:22 pm

g


Last edited by StankApe on Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:20 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
StankApe

Posts : 351
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: the Patterson Gimlin film: the only LEGIT Bigfoot film?

Post  CMcMillan on Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:33 pm

StankApe wrote:it's no an excuse, it's what happened. of you go look at my posts I bet you will see a discernible change after 1 am.


it's your bidness if you want to walk around just looking for an excuse to be outraged. but I will laugh at you if you do it. I think you could lighten up a little bit and stop taking, ever, single, post, to heart............

But, seriously, you must admit you sound awfuly eager to rationalize every silly bit of video or evidence that comes along as "possible". anything is possible to an extent, that doesn't mean we should all be waiting around for it to happen...

Your jumping to conclusions that I have not made or put forth.
I have not jumped at every bit of video or Picture. As far as Rationalizing we all do that. Since Rationlizing means to make it real in what it could or couldn't be.
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: the Patterson Gimlin film: the only LEGIT Bigfoot film?

Post  Woodwose on Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:35 pm

Yes, Stankape, that clarifies things (to a degree).

Your overall position on BF makes sense, but I can't share your view of PGF (despite my scepticism) without supporting evidence.

Maybe you could PM me with details of how to access the footage you are talking about? I've got nothing to lose and don't mind treading on a few toes.
avatar
Woodwose

Posts : 389
Join date : 2012-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: the Patterson Gimlin film: the only LEGIT Bigfoot film?

Post  BurdenOfProof on Sun Aug 19, 2012 3:43 pm

Scientists that reviewed a film by patterson back in the 60s have said the film they were shown is different to the one now known as the PGF.

Hoax.
avatar
BurdenOfProof

Posts : 263
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: the Patterson Gimlin film: the only LEGIT Bigfoot film?

Post  DPinkerton on Sun Aug 19, 2012 4:59 pm

BurdenOfProof wrote:Scientists that reviewed a film by patterson back in the 60s have said the film they were shown is different to the one now known as the PGF.

Hoax.

I will admit I do not know the who history of this footage but this is curious to me. The original film that was studied is different than the film studied today? What was the conclusion of the original study? When did the version of the film switch? How is it different?

DPinkerton

Posts : 171
Join date : 2012-08-14
Location : Colorado

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: the Patterson Gimlin film: the only LEGIT Bigfoot film?

Post  GT3Paul on Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:31 pm

the original is missing I think. And most of the tapes today are copies of copies. But it doesnt matter.

We have guys here saying "its a guy in a suit" then they have no real evidence to back it up other than to be contrary.

NOW we have a guy, who JUST passed a Lie detector test, ADMINISTERED by a recognized EXPERT, who says the thing going
through my mind right before he pulled the trigger killing a REAL bigfoot, was "That it LOOKS LIKE A GUY IN A SUIT"

So if we allow that Justin is telling the truth then the argument that the PGF was "A GUY IN A SUIT" is not valid.
Not only that, but we have a recognized FILM expert who says the technology wasnt available to make THAT GOOD of a costume
in the late 60's. THEN we have the Planet of the APES a high budget HOLLYWOOD film with laughable monkey suits and masks
that was produced for our conversation in the SAME time period, showing at least to me, that HOLLYWOOD INDEED did NOT have
the technology to make a suit of that quality. ON TOP OF THAT, we have a guy recently who is another expert in costumes MAKE
a suit to PROVE PGF was a fake FAIL Miserably in this century. HIS suit did not have NEARLY the quality that Patty had in movement
and naturalness only further showing making a costume in that day in age was likely IMPOSSIBLE.

The copy of a copy is just a distraction from the fact that no one has come forward with anything like what Patty was in the late 60's.
No one has MADE a costume of that quality EVEN TODAY 45 years later. Then a guy who says he Killed a BigFoot NEAR the area Patty
was seen years ago, who PASSES a lie detector test with a criminal pathology artist drawing what Justin Saw that afternoon that LOOKs
not only like Patty but could be a relative of the creature.

So you can come here and say that you dont believe the PGF is real, and that you dont like the circumstances of the making of the film,
but the proof is more in favor that it IS real than it isnt. What I have done here is lay out an argument on why it COULD be real.
There hasnt been ONE GOOD argument that it is NOT. All we have is people coming in here and name calling if you think its real or
if you even believe in God. Well that stuff is just poorly presented.

So Pinkerton use your own mind and common sense on the PGF film and dont be distracted by arguments that deter you from that basic
path of thinking.
avatar
GT3Paul
Admin

Posts : 315
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: the Patterson Gimlin film: the only LEGIT Bigfoot film?

Post  Danny Squatchanini on Sun Aug 19, 2012 6:16 pm

I watching-again-the NG special on Bigfoot last night-I think it was called Paranormal and it focused on the P/G footage. Bill Munns was at Ms. Patterson's home with the first copy of the original because all others just are blurry and are copies of copies. There was no mention of the original but I do remember seeing a special a few years ago that had the original. This copy was able to show all the muscle movement in its back, back legs, butt, lower back, and a few others. Anyone want to elaborate further on that special and what you think of it?
avatar
Danny Squatchanini

Posts : 127
Join date : 2012-08-01
Age : 48
Location : NYC

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: the Patterson Gimlin film: the only LEGIT Bigfoot film?

Post  Hucksterfoot on Sun Aug 19, 2012 6:35 pm

Woodwose wrote:
Unless you are a qualified primatologist with years of experience and have worked with a team of relevant experts researching the subject, then your estimate makes no sense.
That's a bit of a fallacy
That would depend ...if that primatologist is a legitimate expert on the subject [and we're talking Bigfoot here] ...and there should be a consensus among legitimate experts in the subject matter that is under discussion.
So-called Bigfoot experts shouldn't be biased or prejudiced; it weakens their arguments.
Belief and inquiry is good though, it can lead to a body of evidence, your field evidence. Evidence that isn't pre-fit to fit one's conclusions. The Skookum cast and midtarsal break comes to mind.
The scientific community is convinced by evidence, not by authority; evidence counts more than authority.
avatar
Hucksterfoot

Posts : 20
Join date : 2012-08-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: the Patterson Gimlin film: the only LEGIT Bigfoot film?

Post  Hucksterfoot on Sun Aug 19, 2012 6:48 pm

GT3Paul wrote:
NOW we have a guy, who JUST passed a Lie detector test, ADMINISTERED by a recognized EXPERT, who says the thing going
through my mind right before he pulled the trigger killing a REAL bigfoot, was "That it LOOKS LIKE A GUY IN A SUIT"

Then a guy who says he Killed a BigFoot NEAR the area Patty
was seen years ago, who PASSES a lie detector test with a criminal pathology artist drawing what Justin Saw that afternoon that LOOKs
not only like Patty but could be a relative of the creature.
What do you think of Bob Heironimus passing two lie detector tests?
avatar
Hucksterfoot

Posts : 20
Join date : 2012-08-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: the Patterson Gimlin film: the only LEGIT Bigfoot film?

Post  Hucksterfoot on Sun Aug 19, 2012 6:51 pm

Danny Squatchanini wrote:I watching-again-the NG special on Bigfoot last night-I think it was called Paranormal and it focused on the P/G footage. Bill Munns was at Ms. Patterson's home with the first copy of the original because all others just are blurry and are copies of copies. There was no mention of the original but I do remember seeing a special a few years ago that had the original. This copy was able to show all the muscle movement in its back, back legs, butt, lower back, and a few others. Anyone want to elaborate further on that special and what you think of it?

Everybody would like to know of this special that had a copy of the original. Are you thinking MK Davis stuff?
avatar
Hucksterfoot

Posts : 20
Join date : 2012-08-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: the Patterson Gimlin film: the only LEGIT Bigfoot film?

Post  GT3Paul on Sun Aug 19, 2012 7:15 pm

Huckster, are you talking about the guy who wore the suit? Supposedly? the suit he displayed goes back to what I said before.
It looks like a poor imitation. I mean a REAL poor imitation. Given that the suit he poses with looks NOTHING like what patty did,
you can see her lips move, and the mask he has goes back to my point about Planet of the Apes. The mask he had was just crude
compared to even the laughable Planet of the Apes movie.
He doesnt seem credible. I dont know the specifics of it like I know the specifics of the Smeja's story.
So what I think is you have a little fat guy with a piss poor imitation suit (by the way I have a friend who has a suit
JUST like that in Bobs photo with the BF feet shoes and it looks HORRIBLY fake when he walks and NOTHING like Patty)
who really isnt of the same quality. Over all just a very poor example when comparing to the PGF. If you want to base
your belief on that kind of evidence go ahead. I dont buy it at all. I think Bob is a Huckster.
avatar
GT3Paul
Admin

Posts : 315
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: the Patterson Gimlin film: the only LEGIT Bigfoot film?

Post  Papa Bear on Mon Aug 20, 2012 4:05 am

interesting video from m. dineromaker. in regards to additional evidence to the legitimacy of the PGF.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRi1VLBxtZc&feature=youtu.be
avatar
Papa Bear

Posts : 21
Join date : 2012-08-15
Location : Nor-Cal

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: the Patterson Gimlin film: the only LEGIT Bigfoot film?

Post  I AM THE BLOBSQUATCH on Mon Aug 20, 2012 4:20 am

GT3Paul wrote:the original is missing I think. And most of the tapes today are copies of copies. But it doesnt matter.

We have guys here saying "its a guy in a suit" then they have no real evidence to back it up other than to be contrary.

NOW we have a guy, who JUST passed a Lie detector test, ADMINISTERED by a recognized EXPERT, who says the thing going
through my mind right before he pulled the trigger killing a REAL bigfoot, was "That it LOOKS LIKE A GUY IN A SUIT"

So if we allow that Justin is telling the truth then the argument that the PGF was "A GUY IN A SUIT" is not valid.
Not only that, but we have a recognized FILM expert who says the technology wasnt available to make THAT GOOD of a costume
in the late 60's. THEN we have the Planet of the APES a high budget HOLLYWOOD film with laughable monkey suits and masks
that was produced for our conversation in the SAME time period, showing at least to me, that HOLLYWOOD INDEED did NOT have
the technology to make a suit of that quality. ON TOP OF THAT, we have a guy recently who is another expert in costumes MAKE
a suit to PROVE PGF was a fake FAIL Miserably in this century. HIS suit did not have NEARLY the quality that Patty had in movement
and naturalness only further showing making a costume in that day in age was likely IMPOSSIBLE.

The copy of a copy is just a distraction from the fact that no one has come forward with anything like what Patty was in the late 60's.
No one has MADE a costume of that quality EVEN TODAY 45 years later. Then a guy who says he Killed a BigFoot NEAR the area Patty
was seen years ago, who PASSES a lie detector test with a criminal pathology artist drawing what Justin Saw that afternoon that LOOKs
not only like Patty but could be a relative of the creature.

So you can come here and say that you dont believe the PGF is real, and that you dont like the circumstances of the making of the film,
but the proof is more in favor that it IS real than it isnt. What I have done here is lay out an argument on why it COULD be real.
There hasnt been ONE GOOD argument that it is NOT. All we have is people coming in here and name calling if you think its real or
if you even believe in God. Well that stuff is just poorly presented.

So Pinkerton use your own mind and common sense on the PGF film and dont be distracted by arguments that deter you from that basic
path of thinking.

PREACH!!!! cheers

I AM THE BLOBSQUATCH

Posts : 71
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: the Patterson Gimlin film: the only LEGIT Bigfoot film?

Post  CMcMillan on Mon Aug 20, 2012 11:53 am

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/30016-kitakazes-patty-suit-bombshell/page__st__60__p__577317#entry577317

As I said earlier, all of the details of how the suit was made and the specifics of it's construction are material for the documentary. I can tell you now the suit has three main parts: head, torso, legs.

And look that conflicts with the supposed person who wore the suit.
Seriously I love how the people who believe it was a Hoax make up as many excuses as people who believe in it.
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: the Patterson Gimlin film: the only LEGIT Bigfoot film?

Post  Hucksterfoot on Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:02 pm

A full serving for ya

avatar
Hucksterfoot

Posts : 20
Join date : 2012-08-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: the Patterson Gimlin film: the only LEGIT Bigfoot film?

Post  Hucksterfoot on Mon Aug 20, 2012 9:42 pm

CMcMillan wrote:
Phillip Morris (A one Piece costume with a zipper)

Seriously, I did my research, and it wasn't a one piece suit.

Hucksterfoot wrote:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/man_who_sold_bigsuit/
six pieces: head, body (a back-zippered fake-fur torso with arms and legs), and a pair of glove hands and latex feet.

You seem to get all cranky about the modification part; why Heironimus describes a different three part suit. That's fine, you don't have to believe it. We just have a case of some crazy guy riding around Yakima in 1967 with a bigfoot suit in his mother's car trunk, that's all.
avatar
Hucksterfoot

Posts : 20
Join date : 2012-08-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: the Patterson Gimlin film: the only LEGIT Bigfoot film?

Post  Hucksterfoot on Mon Aug 20, 2012 11:11 pm

GT3Paul wrote:Huckster, are you talking about the guy who wore the suit?

Yes, that would be Heironimus.

GT3Paul wrote:you can see her lips move

You gotta love all the artifacts and noise that one can draw these conclusions from.

avatar
Hucksterfoot

Posts : 20
Join date : 2012-08-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: the Patterson Gimlin film: the only LEGIT Bigfoot film?

Post  CMcMillan on Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:43 am

Hucksterfoot wrote:
CMcMillan wrote:
Phillip Morris (A one Piece costume with a zipper)

Seriously, I did my research, and it wasn't a one piece suit.

Hucksterfoot wrote:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/man_who_sold_bigsuit/
six pieces: head, body (a back-zippered fake-fur torso with arms and legs), and a pair of glove hands and latex feet.

You seem to get all cranky about the modification part; why Heironimus describes a different three part suit. That's fine, you don't have to believe it. We just have a case of some crazy guy riding around Yakima in 1967 with a bigfoot suit in his mother's car trunk, that's all.

But in the big foot forums the man who says he has the suit or knows about the suit describes the body part as a 1 piece while the man who took a lie detector test named Heironimus described the body part as a 2 piece upper and lower then feet, hands and head. Seems the people who call it a costume can not get their story together.
And how come we can't see pictures of this supposed costume more stories just like people accuse footers of creating.
avatar
CMcMillan

Posts : 1097
Join date : 2012-08-05
Location : USA CT

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: the Patterson Gimlin film: the only LEGIT Bigfoot film?

Post  BurdenOfProof on Tue Aug 21, 2012 9:24 am

Even if you prove that bob heironimous wasnt in the suit, you do know that does not therefore prove the PGF is real? You do know that right?
avatar
BurdenOfProof

Posts : 263
Join date : 2012-08-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: the Patterson Gimlin film: the only LEGIT Bigfoot film?

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum