the Patterson Gimlin film: the only LEGIT Bigfoot film?

CMcMillan wrote:

BurdenOfProof wrote:why does the film need to be reproduced?

its impossible, unless we time travel and go back to 1967, but even then and even if patty was real and we convinced her to walk accross the creek... the video would still look completely different.

The lens used, camera set up, film stock, camera angles, horse dismounting / cameraman movement etc, location of subject, movement of subject etc etc.

WAY too many factors.

you want the film reproduced?

well go out and film another bigfoot as patterson supposidly did so easily.

Why should WE who are not questioning the film do it?
Skeptics should be doing it. Yet they can not replicate the suit! Even with all the Information and supposidly knowing the maker of the suit it can not be matched using the time periods resources.

Why should skeptics be doing that, we are not making the extraordinary claims.

It must be easy cruising BF forums, with that fall back.

I find it extraordinary that the suit has never been recreated, and the depth of the footprint depressions on that sandbar, have never been replicated by a person.

I find it extraordinary that whatever walked across that sand bar had a 41 inch stride, and was able to cover ground like that in a fur suit.

You claim it had a diaper but, and was so obviously hoaxed it's laughable. Whether one believes it was hoaxed or not, that is an extreme position to qualify. Why is that every time you are challenged to offer some depth and support of your opinions, or to refute a valid line of reasoning, you fail?

You can fall back on ECREE, if you like. But it impossible to take you seriously when you maintain such an obtuse position, and require much of proponents, and offer so very little yourself.

What I like about some skeptics here such as Stank, and Kel is that they offer reasoning and justifications for their opinions. We may disagree in the end, but I don't feel my time has been completely wasted.

BurdenOfProof wrote:

CMcMillan wrote:

BurdenOfProof wrote:why does the film need to be reproduced?

its impossible, unless we time travel and go back to 1967, but even then and even if patty was real and we convinced her to walk accross the creek... the video would still look completely different.

The lens used, camera set up, film stock, camera angles, horse dismounting / cameraman movement etc, location of subject, movement of subject etc etc.

WAY too many factors.

you want the film reproduced?

well go out and film another bigfoot as patterson supposidly did so easily.

Why should WE who are not questioning the film do it?
Skeptics should be doing it. Yet they can not replicate the suit! Even with all the Information and supposidly knowing the maker of the suit it can not be matched using the time periods resources.

Why should skeptics be doing that, we are not making the extraordinary claims.

Actually Burden you are. You can not prove it is a hoax so it is an extraordinary claim.
So prove that it is FAKE!

ECREE I like that, I will use that in the future.

"You can not prove it is a hoax" is the same as saying "you can not prove it doesnt exist".

You can not prove that anything doesnt exist.

I can not prove Santa Claus does not exist. Sorry. Does that mean Santa Claus exists? Nope.

The flying spaghetti monster exists because I say so, I have no evidence to support that, but you can not prove it doesnt exist!!.

Scientist agree the logical solution to the PGF is that it is man in a suit. I think that seems like a reasonable and realistic conclusion does it not?

Why is this the logical solution?

Well firstly we know humans exist and even like to dress up in furry suits.

We know human lie, decieve, and/or seek attention.

We also know that there is no known bipedal hairy animals in north america (and the rest of the world).

Could the figure in the PGF be a man in a suit? Yes.

Therefore the logical solution is a man in a suit. Like it or not thats a pretty reasonable conclusion.

And ALL this can be reasoned before we even look at the story behind the PGF.

"Why is that every time you are challenged to offer some depth and support of your opinions, or to refute a valid line of reasoning, you fail?"

So far I have not seen any need to go into any depth over a trivial matter as this.

What would you like me to go into depth about?

BurdenOfProof wrote:ECREE I like that, I will use that in the future.

"You can not prove it is a hoax" is the same as saying "you can not prove it doesnt exist".

You can not prove that anything doesnt exist.

I can not prove Santa Claus does not exist. Sorry. Does that mean Santa Claus exists? Nope.

The flying spaghetti monster exists because I say so, I have no evidence to support that, but you can not prove it doesnt exist!!.

Scientist agree the logical solution to the PGF is that it is man in a suit. I think that seems like a reasonable and realistic conclusion does it not?

Why is this the logical solution?

Well firstly we know humans exist and even like to dress up in furry suits.

We know human lie, decieve, and/or seek attention.

We also know that there is no known bipedal hairy animals in north america (and the rest of the world).

Could the figure in the PGF be a man in a suit? Yes.

Therefore the logical solution is a man in a suit. Like it or not thats a pretty reasonable conclusion.

And ALL this can be reasoned before we even look at the story behind the PGF.

"Why is that every time you are challenged to offer some depth and support of your opinions, or to refute a valid line of reasoning, you fail?"

So far I have not seen any need to go into any depth over a trivial matter as this.

What would you like me to go into depth about?

Scientist agree the logical solution to the PGF is that it is man in a suit. I think that seems like a reasonable and realistic conclusion does it not?

lol their are Scientists that agree its not a man in suit.
So guess what it is still in question then isn't it.

So question Burden Are wormholes in space real or made up?

Which scientists? Meldrum?

Even he says its interesting footage that could possibly show an undiscovered creature but he certainly hasnt jumped to that conclusion.

Any other scientists?

I honestly think that we will never know the truth. If it was a hoax, it was the best hoax ever including the costume and if it is real, well God damn that is a big sucker and I would not want to meet with that any time of the day no matter how much firepower I had with me! I would shit my pants!!

g

is it possible to get hold of a high res copy of the film? or even just a high res copy of the lookback portion?

BurdenOfProof wrote:
Why is this the logical solution?

Well firstly we know humans exist and even like to dress up in furry suits.

We know human lie, decieve, and/or seek attention.

We also know that there is no known bipedal hairy animals in north america (and the rest of the world).

Could the figure in the PGF be a man in a suit? Yes.

Therefore the logical solution is a man in a suit. Like it or not thats a pretty reasonable conclusion.

The problem here is that no one has been able to recreate what was done by "the man in the suit". So we are left with 2 outcomes...

Either "the man in the suit" was able to do something that no one else is capable of

or it is a video of what it is claimed to be.

Based on those two options the logical solution is NOT a man in a suit...since out of over 6 billion known humans, none have exhibited these characteristics, suit or not.

DPinkerton wrote:

BurdenOfProof wrote:
Why is this the logical solution?

Well firstly we know humans exist and even like to dress up in furry suits.

We know human lie, decieve, and/or seek attention.

We also know that there is no known bipedal hairy animals in north america (and the rest of the world).

Could the figure in the PGF be a man in a suit? Yes.

Therefore the logical solution is a man in a suit. Like it or not thats a pretty reasonable conclusion.

The problem here is that no one has been able to recreate what was done by "the man in the suit". So we are left with 2 outcomes...

Either "the man in the suit" was able to do something that no one else is capable of

or it is a video of what it is claimed to be.

Based on those two options the logical solution is NOT a man in a suit...since out of over 6 billion known humans, none have exhibited these characteristics, suit or not.

Which characteristics?

The gait which has been perfectly replicated?

The leg angle, explained by someone wearing big fake feet?

The limb proportions, which are within human range?

Which characteristics are you talking about?

g

StankApe wrote:What characteristics? walked? looked back? was fuzzy?

It's within human height, within human gait, within human proportions... logically it's a human in a suit.


everything goes against the PGF as being real, the background of Patterson, Gimlin's lying about BH being there. The fact that nobody has gotten a film as good or better since. The humanlike proportions. the gait of the filmed subject not matching up with the alleged prints done later. (of which Krantz himself was dubious).

The only thing it has going for it is faith. people put so much faith in the film, as it spurred their childhood curiosity (myself included) that facing up to the probability it was a hoax is a daunting task. But I have seen nothing to change my mind that it's a hoax. so many things involving it don't add up.

Again everything goes against it being a suit.'
The 3 different decriptions of the suit. The fact Patterson took a Lie Detector test and passed it before the Film was shown.
The only way a human can do the walk is with PRACTICE and wearing some Kinda of Big foot. So again your saying it is a Hoax is not accurate since All the items you say can be tested to be Invalid.

g

StankApe wrote:

lol, no they can't, footers have bent the rules to hell and back trying to make patty special, nobody has manged to do it.


it's a fake, it's all right there on the film. evidence. baggyness, hairy boobs, subduction on the thigh, the fabric folds where the butt meets the thigh, the butt is one big bump.... you have to make excuses for all of these things. and I see no animal out there, that we have to make excuses for, when it is shot on film.

Yea and Skeptics of the film keep Bending the rules as well. So stop trying to play that its only Bigfooters.

Its a Fake? Didn't you just say that in order for skeptics and Footers to get on better is to not make absolutes yet you did right here.
So your saying because you "OBSERVE" "SEE" it as a costume it must be a FAKE.
So when someone see's a BIGFOOT why aren't you allowing them the same respect that you expect since you Obviously have some kind of Superpower to look at a film of a creature and say its a Fake.
But its just your Observation that you MUST say its a FAKE.
Do you see how hypocritical you are being?

Show me the evidence of it being a fake. That is UNCONTESTED!~
You claim its a fake SHOW us the proof that it is.

"So when someone see's a BIGFOOT why aren't you allowing them the same respect"

How do you know what a bigfoot looks like?

BurdenOfProof wrote:"So when someone see's a BIGFOOT why aren't you allowing them the same respect"

How do you know what a bigfoot looks like?

Again you aren't reading very well.

The Creature we call "Bigfoot" "Sasquatch" "Yeti" etc.... May be a Wild feral human, May be a Hominid, Maybe some kind of Large Primate.
We don't have a specific classification as of yet so these terms are similar to U.F.O. which is an Unidentified Flying Object
So when someone says they saw a U.F.O if they can't Identify it is a U.F.O
this is the same logic of Bigfoot.
For all we know their may be several creatures with similar characteristics that we call these names.
Right now it is a catch all name till we have a specific specimen to identify it with a family and species type.

Well thats your speculation, which is fine.

Back to the PGF....

Anyones thoughts on the static butt and subduction under the thigh?

BurdenOfProof wrote:Well thats your speculation, which is fine.

Back to the PGF....

Anyones thoughts on the static butt and subduction under the thigh?

Yeah... It's called "There are none of which you speak." Bigfoot:Legend Meets Science will answer your question of what scientists believe the patty film is real. And it's a lot more than Dr. Meldrum. They also obtain the original footage which is much more clear and void of all artifacts. For instance on the copy of copy of copy of copy films that we are accustomed to looking at, little blips and scratches accumulate thus making the illusion of things in the film that were never there. for instance, in the normal film we see, patty's hand looks curled. But in the original footage it is not. And the origional footage is not even fuzzy. And you see something else you don't see in the copies.. a Buttcrack.

g

StankApe wrote:I've seen the high quality scans blown up and made into to 2 second gifs so we can study little parts of it. The fabric fold and the subduction line on the right leg are even easier to see now.

High quality scans of what? a Copy?. In Legend meets Science they used the actual footage and then copied it to digital frame by frame. There were no folds. And the muscle detail was more prominent than ever.

Aside from Meldrum, they had bio mechanics guys looking at the film that ruled it out as impossible to be a suit even if Patty was only 5ft tall. they scaled a human skeleton to fit it into patty. it could not be done. Even if Patty was only 5ft tall a humans knees would bend mid thigh to patty and the arm to shoulder to head ratio also would not work. Even with a human having a longer neck and Patty having a shorter neck, a human in a suit could not line up to pattys eye level.

And we had no technology to make a suit like that back then. Even the top creature effects artist at the time said it was impossible. I said this on the blog and I will say it here... If the #1 creatue effects guy at the time stated a suit you made could not be done, wouldn't you open your mouth right then and there and show the world the suit that you made that "Could not be done"? Roger Patterson was penniless and broke when he made that film. So where most skeptics like to point this out as a hoax motive, it also means he was not able to pay anyone hush money.

Even today we cannot replicate a suit like that... That is why there are so many awful Bigfoot movies out there. The damned 70's Bigfoot flicks are more scary than the current ones. The more detail they try to make, the more stupid the things look. The old Cousin It on steroid monsters of the 70's are the best we can do

g

maybe someone could explain their take on this book. I admit to not having read thru all the thread (little time - my kids make sure of that ) so if this has been discussed sorry. It seems like quite a convincing case against the PGF film. How would those who beleive the film shows a sasquatch respond to this book and its assertion to have solid evidence that PGF was a hoax.

See this link

http://rense.com/general49/making.htm

Btw PGF being fake does not mean BF does not exist. That aint what I'm trying to say.

StankApe wrote:Munns did the high quality scans and back when I was a member of the BFF there were lots of gifs of these scans. used by both sides of the issue.

I can tell the difference between a film artifact and something actually captured on the film itself.....

Look,before Munn's work, I thought it was probably a real creature too, but the clear images changed my mind.

Right you are an expert at FILM with your Year of Film School, Then your super soldier work in the "army" seeing much death. Then your physics work.

You are so full of Absolutes Stank which you say Big footers do more. But you do it just as much as not more.

You Don't know its a Hoax Just as We don't know it to be REAL.

SHOW US THE SUIT!!!

No one needs to show you the suit to sway the balance in favor of a hoax if there is a wealth of other evidence it is a hoax. I could never file the PGF under hoax in my own mind and I still can't totally. The infamous Kal Korff and the Greg Long book do paint a damning picture of a small group of hucksters out to make cash and have a laugh at others expense to boot.

A lot of what is below may be old hat to people but.......

Whilst cleaning out my loft I found an old copy of The Fortean Times (FT192 from Jan 2005 if you wanna order a back copy). It had an interesting article by Kal K Korff where he asserts he has proven the PGF to be a hoax.

I am aware there is a lot of conflicting info from the hoaxer side and a lot of contradictions, but assuming it was a hoax then it wouldn't be a surprise that the waters got muddy along the way. If someone put a gun to my head and made me choose (which I don't encourage by the way) I would reluctantly say it was a hoax.

All that stuff about a massacre too shows that the non-hoaxer side gets muddy too.

According to Kal Korff (described as a debunker by The Fortean Times), They got a recreation of the actual suit, made from Dynel and used it in a recreation at Cow Camp WA in 2004. Bob H wore the suit and did his walk etc and they replicated the butt and the boobs and the arms - the whole schmeer. But there is more besides this, lots of apparently genuine testimony e.g from Harvey Anderson (owner of a gun store who rented the camera to Patterson, set the camera up for him too in terms of frame speed and focus). Anderson was according to Long/Korff/Kiviat a committed hoaxer who made false foot casts and advised Patterson and Gimlin how to make a more convincing hoax. Anderson says Patterson told him he was dying of cancer and wanted to leave his wife some money etc. For the book and film Long/Korff & Kiviat say they interviewed 40 people who confirmed they knew about the hoax but kept quiet over the years due to concerns about getting the hoaxers into legal trouble. A key bit for me is that Bob H's brothers Howard and Mike allegedly showed letters from the 60's that detailed their concerns about the legal implications of the hoax. Throw Phillip Morris into the mix and stew for 45 years.

There are hard to validate assertions on the hoaxer side - the only way to get more info is buy the documentary made by Kiviat made or Long's book. Even then it may not convince committed members of the BF community. I dunno.....