Leaderboard

Here's the complete December 1959 True Magazine article:

"O Ye of Little Faith." I've seen a few videos showing Bobby H. doing his walk. Patty's walk has nothing to do with the swinging of her arms. It has everything to do with the combination of: 1) The compliant gait and 2) the 41" step length and 3) the substrate upon which she walked which was uneven and moved beneath her foot and 4) her ability to maintain her graceful steps despite all the above while looking back as she continued to glide along. Those who think it's no big deal--try it at home. Place markers every 41" then attempt to do it in a controlled environment where the flooring is rigid and perfectly flat. Be sure to maintain your lower leg nearly parallel to the ground as you lift your knee while striding along. Next, go to the beach and attempt the same walk while barefoot where the subtrate will move as your foot sinks in. Finally, maintain that same 41" step length and lookback as you continue to walk, never looking down at your feet. I've never seen anyone who video'd themselves who didn't look like they were ready to topple over. A clumsy oaf, rather than a graceful and gliding ballerina, and those who've attempted it did so without a costume, including full head gear, and footwear that would leave 14 1/2" long impressions in the substrate that could be casted.

"O Ye of Little Faith." We have the answers in our midst. Go back to the BFF 1.0 and review the analysis and discussions about Patty's proportions, including calculations, related to that. I am fortunate to have followed them daily, in real time, watching issue after issue unfold and then be addressed with calculations. It was a true pleasure. I believe Gigantofootecus first posted his observations about Patty's proportions in November 2005. He used photogrammetric calculations to arrive at his conclusions. Anyone claiming PGF is a hoax has to get past those calculations--good luck, you better brush up on cosecant-squared theta, you'll definitely need it. Absolutely fascinating work to formulate his conclusions. Then came Bill Munns with his detailed treatise which methodically examined every aspect of Patty's body in the PGF from head to toe. He left no stone unturned with his stunning and detailed work viewed from the perspective of an expert in filming and suit construction. There probably is no one who knows more about the PGF than he. Then, SwetiYeti painstakingly presented his elbow/arm proportion analysis. It's all there for everyone to view. There is no new video that can undo the spectacular work nor refute the conclusions heretofore by BFF members with respect to the PGF, in my opinion.

^ Good points, although I have my doubts about them being classified as humanish. To me, just too much about them are non-human. But we will see...maybe... I would certainly love to see a reporter ask Trump at a news conference when he is going to release the "Bigfoot Files". I am not holding my breath for that to happen though. Currently reading Where The Footprints End, Vol. II. Finished Vol. I a few days ago. The basic premise is that Bigfoot is totally related to the Fae, UFOs, ghosts, orbs, etc. and all sorts of paranormal activity. Even if you are a firm F&B believer, you do have to admit that their research is impressive. They catalog how Bigfoot is intertwined with activities and events that have been described throughout history as Fae activity, ghosts, trolls, etc. and other folklore. Interesting reading and thought provoking, even if you dismiss their hypothesis. It will make you think. While I have always been a strict F&B guy, there is a lot of weirdness with Bigfoot that defies explanation. Thanks to Joe and Jessi over at Hellbent for helping me to "evolve" my thinking on this. Still believe in F&B for the most part, but I think there are other things happening as well that do not fit neatly into the traditional Bigfoot "box". Yeah, Woo happens... And finally, in regards to the original question, it will mean nothing. Plenty of other evidence point to their existence. As I have always said, every single one of the 10s, probably 100s, of thousands of reports cannot be hoaxes, hallucinations, misidentifications, and outright lies.

Because we know film site? And it was massively studied? We have a darn good idea of how big Patty was. Jim McClarin is 6 foot 6 inches tall.

Try Darby Orcutt's study at NCSU, maybe won't have to use your dime

All arguments in regards to the PG film being a hoax are just smoke with no fire in my humble opinion. I will never accept any argument that the PG film was faked since filming a real bigfoot walking will show muscle movement under dirty fur and faking this is not possible today except with AI clever tricks. These clever tricks were not possible during the time the film was shot. Sorry to be a kill joy...........................AI has changed the way that factual videos will be seen and trusted for real. We are at an age where videos can't be trusted and AI generated videos is a clever way to trick a segment of the population. How do well tell real videos from the AI fakes?

New (to me) about orca culture.

RIP Gareth Patterson, he sadly passed last week.

Yea I am sure he was at the time 6' tall. No one looking for accuracy uses a tape measure to measure height. You mark the height and THEN measure the height if you are limited only to a tape measure. When people use the standing tape measure method it is full of errors and often measures them taller than they are esp. due to a wraparound effect. Further Long has a bias where he needs Bob to be as tall as possible. Not saying he did this and if Bob H is 6' 2'' that's fine by me. I won't take longs word for it but would gladly take Bob H doctor visit records as accurate. I personally could care less how tall Bob H is now so long as he is measured accurately. Most people know how tall they were at their youngest and fittest. When long quotes Bob H as saying he was 6" tall that is the most likely accurate take on his height in 1967. I am sure Bob H reported these many times on any driver's license. If he was a veteran, they measured him in the military. Doctors' visits at the time would measure and weight him. Bob Heironimus would know his height and have many opportunities to drill it into his head. Patty could be 6'1'' tall and Bob H and millions of others could fit in a Patty suit if it was a suit. That's fine. The issue is if Bob H could be a man in a suit. If I asked Roddy McDowell about his makeup process for Planet of the Apes, Roddy could likely tell me accurately in great detail all about the process. He could describe how it was applied, who applied it, how long did things take to dry, did it itch, and so on. He could tell you who the nice person who brought him coffee and doughnuts by name. Bob Heironimus cannot do that. Bob H -just on a suit alone- has constant changing the descriptions. They can't all be right and if they are constantly changing his testimony cannot be trust if the change is dramatically different from previous claims. Anyone who was there that day and camped that night before knows the soil is not "White as snow " For all these and more, reasons bob H height is the least of his concerns.

I think they're suppressing discovery because these creatures will be determined to be a human species, and that will cause a whole new level of political, legal, and real estate problems. Simultaneously, discovery will be too disruptive to the sasquatch species. Currently, they're almost universally left alone by humanity. That will not be the case after discovery. Keeping them mythical is better for everybody, especially the sasquatches.

The PGF while an amazing film? Proves nothing. The war isn't going to be won with films, interviews, conferences, plaster casts or audio analysis. The war will be won with bone, flesh, scat, blood and saliva. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Honestly, this whole thing seems like hearsay to me at this point, which is almost always considered to be weak 'evidence'. Bob G. himself could tell me in person that the PGf was a hoax (I really don't think he would) but, I would still doubt that. The PGf rehearsal being touted (as I understand), will need to be very convincing in order to sway my opinion. And, I would bet you a dollar that it isn't. If the PGf subject were or, if it even could be realistically replicated with, a costume, that would have been done many times by now.

And here we go w/a quick review of Evidence v. Egos. All times are from the YouTube transcript; all comments are made by Eric from Hairy Man Road. He managed to squeeze 3 minutes of specific information into 12 minutes this time, so his signal to noise ration is at least improving a little. 1:00 Patricia Patterson "admits that the 67 footage is a hoax." Who calls the P-G film "the 67 footage?" Is he referring to the new footage, which he mistakenly referred to as being shot in 1967 in his first video? Starting at 6:41, the narrator states that Jeff Meldrum (RIP) agreed that it was a dry run. In the last video he has Dr. Meldrum saying "it looks like a dry run." That's not an insignificant difference, and had a follow-up question been asked, it would clarify if Dr. Meldrum would have been able to offer a more complete answer. He might have, and that answer might be on the cutting room floor. The narrator then states that Patricia Patterson admitted that it was Bob Gimlin in the film. That's like claiming as a shocking development "that Japan once attacked U.S. forces in Hawaii." I think everyone with some actual knowledge of this matter knows that there was an earlier attempt at making a commercial film. Then at 6:51 the narrator declares that Bill Munns is only defending the film because he (Mssr. Munns) has a financial stake in the P-G film being real. If that's the case, Eric from Hairy Man Road has no credibility on anything he says because he has a financial stake in pushing his YouTube channel. He also claims that Bill Munns is about to release another book on the P-G film. "Everybody's saying that ..." Actually, there's only about 2 minutes of specific information that's even worth mentioning in this 12-minute clip.

Okay, I looked at the transcript of this video because it's a typical podcast or webshow which crams 4 minutes of information into 30 minutes.... Clint Patterson, the "witness" in the new film is 66-years old. That makes him 7 years old when the P-G film was made and probably 12 years old when his father passed away. Clint Patterson never states that his father admitted the hoax to him. Clint Patterson claims that his mother stated that Bob Heironimus wore the P-G film suit. Patricia Patterson is in this film (Edited to Add: According to this reviewer, she does not say "The P-G film was a hoax." She does call it a curse, which is not inaccurate, I'm sure.) Clint P states that she "disowned him" after he stated that he was going to discredit the P-G film, but reading through this reviewer's comments, it sounds like Clint P was on the outs with his family long before that. Clint P apparently hadn't seen his mother "in quite a long time." This film apparently relies on Greg Long's taped interviews of people used for his book. The film also shows clips from Greg Long's speaking tour discrediting the P-G film. Clint Patterson supposedly didn't report "the truth" sooner because Patricia Patterson was making money off the P-G film. (Then why would he discredit the film now?) The "telling" reaction from Bob Gimlin appears to be that he stated at a 2024 Bigfoot conference that he was "ready to tell the truth," but never did the follow-up interview that he agreed to make. This falls short of being a confession that he was in on a hoax in the P-G film. It sounds like the key test for most people will be how close the Patterson Ahtanum Film shot man in a suit is to the Patty suit. Notwithstanding Bill Munns' great work on the film, I think it still might be possible that Roger Patterson was such a bad filmmaker that even a film expert could be fooled.

Of course the BF world blows up when I'm in the middle of some real world concerns. So as I go through this thread I'll probably find that many of these things have been asked and answered. While it is irrelevant who a witness (or victim) is, their reputation for honesty or lack thereof and past examples of dishonest behavior can be used to demonstrate that their claim in a specific instance cannot be credited. A very long time ago, DAs almost never prosecuted alleged rapists if the victim was a known prostitute - who the victim was personally should have been irrelevant to the alleged crime. And a convicted embezzler can be the victim of embezzlement. However, his past convictions could be relevant to demonstrate that his claims that he was a victim should not be credited. His past actions would go to the weight the jury would give to the testimony. Unfortunately, Roger Patterson's past actions (misappropriating the camera he used, repeated dishonorable failure to repay debts) do give a reason to trust his statements about what happened at Bluff Creek less. BUT, his statements are only one item of evidence. Bingo. Unfortunately, those who are not deep in the weeds won't know that this supposedly new adverse information was known and addressed. What Meldrum said is that "there's several possibilities ... the first one is its bullshit ..." Cutting off the other possibilities and claiming that Meldrum "stated that the P-G film is bullshit" is affirmatively misleading. Hopefully, this is due to an innocent error on the poster's part and was not an intentional manipulation of Jeff Meldrum's statement.

Yes it does. Most Bigfoot videos including this “gotcha” video we haven't the foggiest idea where the film site is. Yes McClarin and Patty may be misaligned by a few feet. Albeit the sticks and stumps are lining up close. But a few feet? Yah. McClarin is walking pattys track way. Its still visible. But John Green and Roger Patterson almost assuredly are not standing in the exact spot. But close. Thats ALOT better metric than a flat ZERO. Where is Todd Standings filmsites? We don't know. Go take a pick from X Y or Z off the youtubes. The PGF is the most studied Bigfoot film-site in the world. 99.9 percent of them? We have no idea where they were filmed. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. As Bill Munns would tell you? There is value in that. 100 percent. Nothing takes the place of a body of course. And Bob H. is 6’2” tall. It’s not Patty’s height that impresses me. It’s her bulk and muscle movement. And it always has.

Reviews of YouTube reviews. That's what's being discussed here. It is truly a strange world that we live in.

Just got back from a 3200-mile road trip from Washington to the AZ/Mexico border and back. I won an auction for a 2009 IH ambulance in Marysville, WA so had to take a sidetrack to there and pick it up. Plan is to convert it into an RV for exploring the Idaho woods. I would have loved to find one in 4x4, but realized most of my weekend trips didn't really need 4wd. The new rig is very beefy and not in too bad of shape. Going to strip the interior and build a log cabin-themed interior complete with little wood stove.

We started out with this paragraph below and have diverged with good discussions with writers such as Norseman, Backdoc, Hunster and a few others. "Later footprints are cast which puts the creature on higher steps then a top trusted scientist observes the creature and its level is boosted higher on that path to discovery. Later hair, more scientist observe it, and then motion picture evidence is brought in and the creature reaches higher up on the ladder of discovery which is now more difficult due to artificial intelligence or AI. Does artificial intelligence which raised the bar on photographic evidence. Possibly some creatures have reached step 9, yet a body or living speciment has not been brought in so it stays on step 9. When we put bigfoot on this ladder, a huge percentage of scientist with higher degrees in zoology agree that bigfoot is on what step? What's your opinion? What step do most credited biologist place bigfoot? What step do you place bigfoot and why?" original post" As Norseman stated, Canada's border is filmed and evidence of bigfoot is probably kept, but we don't know the results unless one country or the other offers this evidence to the public. However, proof of bigfoot has been mounting for years with several films of bigfoot being produced such as the "Snow Walker" or the distant view of bigfoot chasing a herd of deer like animals along open grassland. The Patterson Gimlin film is the icing on the cake since AI was not a factor then. Backdoc and Hunster seem to agree that there is some evidence that could be rated on the 1 to 10 scale of proof. However, as Norseman stated we have not reached a 10 when it comes to proof and a bigfoot on a slab is required. I did read a report and saw a sketch from Canada of a bigfoot that was shot and killed by a hunter. So far, we have fallen short of rating bigfoot proof as a 10 or absolute proof. However, there is great disagreement when it comes to how far proof has risen on a 1 to 10 scale. I venture to say we are on step 9 but the Forest Service seems to indicate we are on -1 and claims bigfoot is a mythical creature along with Daffy Duck. I bet the Forest Service has a few biologist who disagree but keep their jobs by remaining silent after monitoring this forum site. A few of them probably monitor this site but stay in the shadows.

Yeah, I was thinking of county sheriffs officers who document their experiences like any other callout. Federal and state officials? Everything is a secret.

I agree with this fully. There are "scientists" who now believe that the homo sapien population on Earth crashed some 900,000 years ago to as few as 1250 individuals. If true, this indicates that a current sasquatch population of a couple thousand individuals might still be a viable species. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/human-ancestors-nearly-went-extinct-900-000-years-ago/

Just got back from a hike. My left arch is killing me. Old is dumb. Got up to Priest lake yesterday.

The vids you mentioned are not at all impressive to me. If I'm not impressed as a man who is very interested in the subject (esp. as it relates to the PGF primarily) then how can I expect others to be? I don't. They are not. I am not. Like it or not the level of video offered is going to have to be a home-run level. A double or even a tripple won't do. I understand where you are coming from. I have no idea what a population would be. We would both agree if there were 1 million Bigfoot in an area the sightings are going to be more common than if there are only 10. I'm just a regular joe when it comes to actual outdoor experts or hunting experts. I nearly always defer to them on matters which occur outside my front door. It just seems to me you have two issues here: 1) a NEAR EXTINCT number of Bigfoot and 2) a massive area to populate their small numbers. This supports a saying I read on the BFF years ago: "Bigfoot is like the KGB, you don't find them, they find you" These two factors for me just seem to be the most likely reason to explain rare Bigfoot sightings and the difficulty capturing one in a fumbling cell phone camera. No other reason needed. IF the previous assumption you make are true then it is slightly possible the Government would know. However, they wouldn't know any more than lots of non-government agencies and people. Unless Bigfoot is literally an Alien visitor like ET or some science experiment gone awry, I don't see how Bigfoot would be a threat or concern to our national security. Unless it is 1) highlest level of threat and 2) Proven to exist I still don't understand how that Government left Bob Gimlin alive all these years. Maybe they caused Roger to get ill again but they forgot about Bob. They even forgot to seize the PGF on the 1967/19678 USA tour. Watch out Peter Graves. That Memorial Day footage is out there. Other footage it out there. Many of those people haven't been eliminated either. We can both come up with some hunters-shooting-each-other concerns. I would agree. Beyond that, we just have to disagree to some extent. And yet how few times if ever these entities capture a rare animal and so on. Why didn't the government know where millionaire Balloonist Steve Fassett when down in his ballon crash right away? Government isn't all-knowing but they are still darn impressive with their capabilities and keeping us safe for the most part. Still, it took 5,000 volunteers, dogs, and tech. nearly 1 week to find a lost autistic boy lost in a Virgina state park. Massive private and Government entities and it still took a week in a reasonable limited search area. I see no reason there has to be. We might be reading too much into what we think we know and understand about it. Yet, you could be 100% right. This goes into an area I am not as familiar with on those specifics. On the issue of giant skeletons, the few times I have had discussion with people about them, I have yet to meet one who didn't base their consideration of this issue in a religious context. There are other examples I can think of where religious assumptions or traditional or cultural assumption limit a more objective consideration. There are those who think the Vinland Map is 100% authentic. Some believe this based on their belief such a map probably existed and the Viking got here first. Thus, the map has to be real. While they likely did arrive in 900 or 1000AD, this has no bearing on the map.

If we had such a population, we should expect to have a new PGF-level film on a regular basis. These would occur often (more than 1 time in 50 years) by regular people out there with cell phones. Assuming Bigfoot is real, I account for this lack of Patterson-level video by the small number of Bigfoot out there. Bigfoot country makes it harder as well but even in a thick wilderness we can find about anything and film it if there is enough of them. Lack of many new PGF-level films simply supports/reinforces the notion by the scientific community Bigfoot is not likely out there. Deer, Bob Cats, or even the rare Wolverine are caught on video. The more common the animal, the increased ease of capturing it on video. Some parts of our government involved in an area of expertise are generally sitting on their hands until such time they are forced to become reactionary. They are not likely to be pre-emptive. Probably about the same reason about anyone else doesn't know they exist. I was confident- prior to AI fake stuff- if we had a home run clear PGF 2.0 it would prove to most people Bigfoot exists. Now if we had such a film there would be a big "It's got to be fake" feeling out there about Bigfoot or anything else extraordinary. Yet, if we truly had a new, Provable, Home-Run level PGF video or better (and esp. a Body on a slab) Government, non-government and so on would all respond on their own level to these new circumstances. They would react then. Not until then. BTW most people care very little about much outside their own reality until it comes into their life and affects them directly. If CNN, Fox, and so on had 50 reporters with cameras interviewing a hunter who shot a Bigfoot the public would react. Government would react. The public would pressure the government to further act. Science skeptics would react. Some might even apologize to Jeff Meldrum, and so on. Sure, the tree huggers would want Bigfoot protected and some hunter might want to shoot one for their wall but shoot their neighbor by accident. But.... The first thing- Provable Bigfoot-has to occur for any and all those things and more to occur. IF PROOF then REACTION.

If a viable population of Ape men is roaming the hinterlands of north America today? Can you give me any good reasons as to why the federal government wouldn’t know it exists? Why is the Smithsonian exempt from the Indian Graves Act? It’s a simple formula for the government to be clear of conspiracy. Just be transparent. They wont be.

Seems to me that if DNA can ascertain what it is not, it can ascertain that something else is out there. But, as usual, and like everything else, DNA is used for what the powerful want it to be used...........and not to be used for what they don't want it used for.....................

I will definitely be looking into that asap! I really wanna get this off the ground and am curious to see for my self what is going on!

I am completely open to a legitimate argument of the film being faked, but I'm also entirely confident that there will never be one that appropriately counters all the supporting details that indicate that Roger and Bob filmed exactly what they claimed.

Have you heard of the Otang? The YouTube video called 'South Africa's Sasquatch: The Otang'. Simply go to YouTube and call up the title to see this video. Maybe someone can post a clickable title. Is this a new primate that popped up in a flash or has it been hiding in the jungle all along? Why are some calling it a Bigfoot? Will this discovery help the economy of South Africa or will this discovery shut down profits from the jungle?

This is quite interesting.

Or? How do you burn green horse hide and a football helmet with a glass eye ball?🤷🏻‍♂️ Yah its some weak sauce.

https://www.amazon.com/Primate-Myth-Latest-Science-Theory/dp/B0F27ZZ9ZN

I would agree that in the interest of the government, its better off to just deny deny and deny what it can't explain or control. But as far as to "why" it leaves us to speculate. I would imagine if there was a disclosure about Sasquatch and that if the government basically said sasquatch is an alpha apex predator and that they possibly hunt and abduct humans, it would change A LOT about how humans approach nature.

Bingo! Or tries to....even if revealing it or confirming it would be in everyone's best interest. Or would be a five minute topic and then disappear.

I thought it was the December 1960 edition, but it was in one of the True magazine articles that ITS wrote. Right now I believe that they're all probably on the Bigfoot Encounters website, but they have text only for most articles.

The Green/McClarin discussion (between themselves) is on YT. McClarin is quite sure he was stepping "within inches" of the trackway. He says there was still some plaster residue to observe. He also had been to the site a few days (or maybe it was a week) after the PG filming , so he knew the trackway well. Green is considered to have been within a yard of where Roger was filming (they triangulated it repeatedly until things lined up), and knelt down to mimic what Roger had to do. So its a very good re-creation. Even Packham in the (skeptical) BBC documentary admitted that Patty was "just a few inches taller" than McClarin, but that puts the subject at 6'8" or more. And that's in stride, hunched over. Standing height would be more (there's a formula for it). Seven feet even is not out of the question at all.

But....but.......but Hairy Man Road said it's now a proven hoax! Heh!

^^ Oh yeah, I don't trust youtube transcripts. Some of the ones I posted in the P-G film reference thread took hours to correct the garbage that they spit out. I have not yet seen the actual Capturing Bigfoot film (and probably won't for another week due to stuff). Reiterating for the benefit of others, not trying to start a flame war (especially since one of the things going on is a move to West Virginia....) Going through the junk transcript from "I Saw the Footage ... It's a Hoax!," what the guy who saw the footage is saying, not what's actually in the Capturing Bigfoot film, At 3:18, there is a discussion about Clint P and his relationship with other members of the family. Clint (not his mother) states that Bob H was in the Patty suit at 4:09 to 4:23. At 11:18 the narrator begins describing the bad relationship between Patricia Patterson and Clint P - could be because he's letting the cat out of the bag or it could be because Clint P is making up things about his dead dad or saying things he knows nothing about. At 17:31, the narrator repeats Clint P's story that his mother told him that Bob H was in the suit. At 20:28, the narrator begins talking about Clint P's reunion and possible rapprochement with his mother. At 21:36, Patricia Patterson is quoted for the first time (in this video, not the actual film, perhaps) and talks about how the film is cursed and has ruined people's lives - people like her, for example. Almost two minutes later, at 23:42, she's directly quoted as saying "Yeah, yeah, that's that's it. That makes sense now. I'm glad this is out there." That's what? That quote doesn't say anything about the intent behind the newly found film or the veracity of the P-G film. I also have no problem with Bob Gimlin's wife being protective of him given his age and the possible mental acuity problems that come with age. Don't know if Mr. Gimlin has those or doesn't, but his wife certainly would and would know how people could twist his words. Declining to do an interview is not evidence of guilt (says every defense attorney I ever went against).

^^ I know. Didn't think it was you. I'm throwing bricks at the claims made by the film and filmmaker. Sorry for the confusion.

Patty's height is only an issue for two reasons: 1) If the height was so extreme as to be out of human range no human could fit in any suit. Say Patty is 8 foot tall (she isn't), Patty would NOT be a man in a suit. 2) If some person of a known height such as Bob Heironimus claimed to be Patty, they must match Patt's height. If Patty was 6'6" and Bob H was 6'1'' it's pretty hard for Bob H to be Patty. Jim McClarin could be tall enough at 6'5''. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HEIGHT: We must put 1960's heights in perspective: NBA Heightrs Form the 1960s to Today The height of NBA players has evolved significantly from the 1960s to the present day. Here's a brief overview of the trends: 1960s: The average NBA player was around 6'3" tall, with guards being shorter and forwards taller. Sure Bill Russell was tall (6'10") but people in general were NOT as tall in the 1960's as they are now. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WEIGHT: Patty's issue is not so much the height as being massive in size. You can still be average height for a tall guy and still be really big: [ A ] Animals Gorillas are the largest primates, and their size and weight can vary significantly by species and gender. Western Lowland Gorillas: Adult males typically weigh between 300 to 500 pounds (136 to 227 kg) and stand about 4 to 5 feet tall (1.2 to 1.5 meters). Eastern Lowland Gorillas: Adult males can weigh up to 484 pounds (217 kg) and stand about 5 feet 7 inches tall (1.7 meters). Mountain Gorillas: Adult males can weigh up to 220 kg (484 lbs) and stand about 5 feet 7 inches tall (1.7 meters). [ B ] People Football player size. 6'4'' 315lbs The "Blind Side" is one inch shorter than Jim McClarin ! Here is HOF defensive player John Randle. He looks Massive at just 6'1' 290. Compare this man just 6'1'' tall to the taller 1960's Jim McClarin. One seems massive wouldn't you say? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In summary, the issue with the PGF walking subject of Patty is not the height measured by a tape measure but the MASSIVE nature of Patty. Just like the Gorilla under 6 feet tall, the massive body speaks for itself: Give people a chance and they will show you who they are. Sad.

Yesterday I read comments on the Sasquatch Odyssey video I posted just above. Wow, some brutal, hurtful comments toward Mr. Munns, including some from "Hairy Man Road," whose video also appears in this thread, dismissing PGF as a hoax. What a jerk he's proven himself. Bill calmly, respectfully, logically, and with knowledgeable expertise puts forth his views on the new/old footage, even providing the documentary producers with information about the film that they didn't previously know. "Hairy Man Road" proceeds to insult Bill thru comments on a third-party's video. Real class.

There is declination marker at the bottom of topo maps. The problem with that is it is very small and when taking a reading in bad weather you can easily be off by a few degrees. Over 500' it wouldn't matter much but over a mile it could mean life or death. It is always much easier to spread a map out in the warmth and comfort of home and draw the magnetic lines. You can also do it on the computer with mapping software and and then zero im on the particular area you are going. That way, the parallel lines are printed on the map itself.

If you're referring to a short clip of Bob Gimlin speaking to the X creatures TV show, you can see it in writing (and in the show itself) here at the Forums. Just go to There is a transcript of the show which you can review if you want to skip to Bob Gimlin's purported "confession."

NVM

The beauty of the PGF is that, it doesn’t provide any proof that Sasquatch is real, but it can’t be disproven either. The film is inconclusive. And that’s what makes it great. Both sides can only make claims. Nothing so far has been definitive

That’s a frame from the 1967 film. It comes after frame 352.

Is that not just after frame 352? That is the exact rock/stick formations from Bluff Creek, the 66 footage isn’t in Bluff Creek from what I’ve read. Just looks like a filter over the Patterson footage.

So I’ve been a “researcher/experiencer” since 2008, and had my first sighting late 2013/early 2014. So far I’ve had three up close sightings, tons of audio(and have some audio too!), tonnnnns of gifting experience etc. I love interacting with the Bigfoot. I have a method of leaving laminated pictures out for them in the spots I go to and have found it’s a fantastic way to collect hair from them as it sticks to the pictures, I currently have some from a year or so ago from a few different states and am very interested in starting a routine of collecting hairs and testing them. I can probably fund it all myself, and would love some pointers and direction on how to go about collecting the hairs in the best manner possible and the whole process of getting them tested!

Myself and Chris Spencer explore an area with a long report history that we have long suspected as being a wintering area for sasquatches. Follow along as we share about the habitat and even a potential sasquatch trackway.