Leaderboard

Simple solution? Post a few game cameras. No more stolen crops. Voila.

Hi everyone, I was being very careful with things before bring this here but I am now informing you that the subject in the Patterson Gimlin Film is a real female Sasquatch. I was on the fence for years but still gave the creature's existence a 51%-49% possibility. Now it's 100%. There is no doubt in my mind that what Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin captured on film back on October 20, 1967 was the real deal. This opens up a lot of things on many levels, especially for me, and is the end of a long and arduous look at all of the evidence from the first moment I arrived on this Forum up until even today. I know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Well I have that now and will go into how this happened in the next post. I apologize for the delay but I have been sitting here absorbing this for several hours now to make sure it's a solid case. We've all been strung along so often and I certainly never wanted to be one of those who said something and, I the end had nothing. I'm glad to say that that isn't the case here. I'm working out how to present this in the best way possible so everyone can follow the process and understand how things came about. Be patient- it's been 50 years so a few more minutes or an hour or so shouldn't matter. Talk soon, I promise.

You're welcome! Every year I get reports/complaints from folks in the SE who lose massive amounts of fruit, berries, vegetables or corn overnight. Some of them know that BF was the culprit, the rest don't know for sure, but their neighbors have tried to tell them, and suggested they call or e-mail me to discuss the problem. Actually most of the rest don't want to think that BF even exists, much less consider the possibility that one may be stealing their foodstuff! Those conversations get pretty humorous sometimes. (Of course, I can't tell them with certainty that BF is the thief, not even if they live in an area where I know BF have done the same thing in the past.) [We have so many pears trees, scuppernongs vines, thorn-less blackberry vines and fig trees on the place that this year I wish a BF lived close enough to raid them every week. We made enough jelly, jams and preserves to feed the whole neighborhood, even after giving pears away by the bushel.]

Sorry Hiflier that is a fawn. The paunch is gas I think. And the coat is gray because that is its winter coat. Here is a photo of its mom and sister?.

Maybe BF placed it there as bait and is watching you on his own trailcams.

Plussed. No magical tipping point. And this evidence is older than dirt. Its awesome that Hiflier is convinced this is a real creature. Yahoo! Now we need proof that no one can take issue with or pick apart. Thats physical evidence..... the only path I think to end our mystery.

To be clear, when I first started thinking about this I was completely unaware of Dr. Krantz' analysis. I own an original copy of Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us by the late John Green and had seen the same diagram (pg. 445) that was posted on this thread many times but, as things would have it, I never put two and two together on what I was seeing in that diagram in so far as measurements or their relationships to each other. For some reason when looking at the PGF the size of Patty's shoulders became obvious and so I began to wonder about just how wide they were. The only way to really determine that was in the last frames of the PGF. Something you and many others would agree with. It became apparent that her shoulders WERE very wide as a result. I started to wonder how wide compared to her height. It was then I realized that I really didn't need to know her actually physical height but only needed to know the ratio of shoulder width to height. That ratio could then be extrapolated to any arbitrary height. Mr. Bill Munns was kind enough to send me some images of Patty walking away in the last few frames of the PGF. Something we rarely see because everyone seems to always focus on the film section with her looking over her shoulder- frame 352 if you will and adjacent frames. Of course in the last few frames with Patty walking away she appears pretty small on a computer screen but since I was only interested in a ratio it didn't matter. I originally got large shoulder width numbers because I had misinterpreted Mr. Munns scaling. I found some frames that were fairly clear and took screen shots of them and used a scale that had 1/32 divisions to measure the height and width of Patty to get the ratio I was looking for- 2.32. Using that I went conservative on her height because of slightly bent knees (compliant gait) and forward-leaning head. I divided 72 inches by the 2.32 ratio and got 31 inches for a total shoulder span. I got that same measurement from two different frames of the film so was sure it was correct. So taller measurements in height only will result in wider shoulder spans. I found what the average shoulder span is on a Human male and realized at that point that a person in a suit would have their elbows protruding just outside the Patty 'suits shoulders. I then physically measured myself and saw that my own elbows, which measured 36 inches tip to tip verified that my own elbows at the ends of my 19 inch shoulder span would indeed barely stick out from inside a Patty 'suit'. And that they absolutely WOULD NOT be located where Patty's are in frame 352 or any other frame of the PGF. That settled the issue for me of whether or not the subject in the PGF was a real Sasquatch..............It was.