Leaderboard

I'm confident it is and that those skeptics have another hole in their feet.

Definitely looks like a bait site to me. Maybe Bear? We used to use boughs to cover bait so it makes it harder for the birds to pack it off. Its amazing once they find it how ravenous camp robbers, crows, ravens, etc are.

Went scouting for morels today on my "new" ATV (traded my evil posessed 2022 KLR650 for a 2018 Honda Foreman 500 Rubicon EPS straight across). Found a bunch of mushrooms but had to do some hiking deep off the trail. Still too small for my liking, so left them alone. Woods were again, strangely quiet and my Belgian Malinois mix, who normally ranges out around 30 to 50 yards from me, but keeps me in sight, came in close and wouldn't stray more than a few feet away. I soon found a really odd area. On a hillside, with no draw or creek nearby, there was an area trampled and completely devoid of vegetation, behind a log. It looked like an area had been dug down into, like an animal was trying to reach something in the earth. My dog was very curious about the hole and also started sniffing and pawing at it... The area reminded me of where we set a salt block on our property at the lake. When the salt block is gone, the deer will paw at the ground and lick it to get the salt. But this spot had tree limbs and sticks clearly organized next to it, which was really strange. Again, middle of nowhere and area was completely inaccessible by vehicle just a week or so before due to the wind damage to all the roads and trails. http://blob:https://www.facebook.com/8e94a9a9-7391-4fad-bfac-1b647b9524d0

No chance at all according to Munn's who examined the new film and determined it to be Kodachrome II stock manufactured in 1966. I despise AI and have stopped trusting anything...

Little ravenous Dinosaurs! They can make quick work of a well baited bear stand.

I had to clean up in and around a storage shed the other day so the wife can use it for a chicken coop. There was a garbage can behind the shed with dog food in it that I use for bear bait, and the food had gotten wet. I was going to drag it out to a local spot just to lay it out with a camera on it as a scouting event, but multiple disasters still regularly happen here at the house, and I've been denied the time to do anything but wipe asses here. So I dumped it in the swale on the property. The magpies were on it within minutes. Their noses are as good as that of a bear, and the speed of their arrival is much quicker. One would think that they knew that food was in the can, but I never saw them hanging out on the can. But once it was poured out, there they were, almost immediately.

That totally makes sense! Thanks for the insight!

I'm already sick of this film, and I've never even seen it. It's somewhat fascinating though. Just pops out of nowhere with zero context. Nobody saw the Norm Johnson angle coming. If, as described, this newly discovered footage is taken in late '66 or early '67, at a completely different location, different season, different environmental conditions, different lighting, different subject, different actor, different camera angle, different subject behaviour, different filming style - then what the heck is he supposed to be testing, exactly - that he can successfully film someone walking in the woods? 1) We're told by Munns and others that there are specific Patty-esque movements on the found footage. That means they have the exact intricate movements planned many months before, then they wait, and wait - for many months. Given that he took a loan to finish his doc that was due for repayment in early June 67, they apparently had the suit and the camera and everything rehearsed down to the movements way before then - and they wait for something? Until late October, 500 miles away when they've already tested what it looks like, filmed relatively speaking on their doorstep, presumably in Bigfoot HQ in Washington, judging by what is described. 2) I think the earliest we have a record of a K100 and Kodachrome II in Patterson's hands is May 13th 1967. That's not to say he couldn't have had another sometime earlier, just that there is no record or other footage known to have been filmed on a K100 prior to May, as far as I know. 3) If, as the Director asserts, it is Al DeAtley in the suit based on his movements, then they have the suit and the actor. It may have been made to measure for Al, as Bob H certainly does not mention being measured up. Why would you want to risk exposing your hoax by dragging some car crash like Bob Heironimus into the inner circle, if you already had someone? That makes no sense from a risk perspective. 4) They have specific movements of the actor all planned and rehearsed in late 66/early 67, then in August they put Bob H in the suit and let him "walk up and down 3 times" in Patterson's back yard (from Long's interview). They never train him on specific movements or show him the film they shot. Then magically, the next time Bob H meets them in October, he dons the suit and out come all the specific moves again that he's never been coached how to do. Doesn't make sense. 5) Where are the other takes? They do one take for 40 seconds almost a year earlier, and then.....? 6) They film a rehearsal of a hoax. They then either don't bother to take possession of the developed film, or they let Norm Johnson keep the original, while he palms them off with A COPY. A copy that could be a smoking gun for their hoax, because they can tell it's not the original from the copy markings? Also - zero sense. If Norm is pulling a fast one, then why keep the original? Just give the original back, as they have no way of knowing the original has been copied. 7) Norm Johnson's wife is so worried about him being implicated in a hoax, she requests that he 'put the film away' in a safe. If you are that worried, you would just destroy it. To me, many of the above points don't make any sense if the footage was a rehearsal, but they make much more sense if it was a recreation.

Let them produce their evidence before a panel (jury) just like the sasquatch community has been doing. Not to make everybody "believe", but to call for investment into the phenomenon. As I type we have Congress investigating claims of extraterrestrial invasion in aerial/submersible vehicles based upon testimony and radar evidence. The sasquatch community has every bit as much testimony and historical reference along with plenty of trace evidence and photographic evidence. Yup. IF these creatures exist, some within government MUST know about it. Just like with the UFO phenomenon.

( some people are touchy these days ) I mention having enough “proof of a hoax” but that’s specifically in relation to this Trial Run hyped film on this thread. If this film somehow was Iron Clad ( and I mean iron clad) proof of a hoax then I would accept that. I want to believe I will give the film a fair chance. If I was honest though, I’m already very unlikely to be actually neutral about it. I’ve predetermined this video will be a nothing burger. I agree with you the “Patterson documentary” is the most likely explanation of this hyped film. (I share your cynical feeling. I imagine the planet is a better place with you).

This is the best example I can think of to explain these "smoking gun" claims. It could be a suit in a glass case. It could be claims of multiple confessions that are said to be recorded. Same thing. I don't know the content of tihs new smoking gun video. Yet, I will suspect this time next year we will have long moved off it it as one more nothing burger in the long line of notihng burgers. Funny thing Morris and Kitkaze being mentioned in the same post. Kit has mention many times about the Morris suit as an attempt to throw hair in the soup. The idea was if he could poison the meal with one thing we wouldn't want to eat it. He would promote Morris and even gladly posted a still pic to prove the fact he had in fact interviewed Morris personally. Years ago on the forums I asked him words to this effect: Do you beleive any suit used at bluff creek was in any way a Morris suit? You intereviewed the guy. Tell us, what do you think? Like so many isuses, when you ask Kit a direct Q he flops aournd and changed the subject often. Then finally he did admit any Patty suit was not a Morris suit. He had posted words to this effect as I recall: I think Morris is really good person who is just mistaken No, I dont think the PGF suit is any morris suit. As far as the Morris recration (walking ewok Bob Heironimus) If you have to hide it there is probably a reason.

I've learned that I don't care to ever watch another minute of the smug Hairy Man Road. His 15 seconds of fame were more than enough.

Kitakaze supposedly nailed down the where about of the suit years ago….. and then nothing.🤷‍♂️ I know that the Morris recreation suit was an abomination. If the skeptics had something? They would produce it by now.

Nice bunker! PNW, the trees sound like what some would say is BF sign.

Found this in the woods today!

No, the footprint casts can't be used as evidence to support the PGF because there is no continuous film showing that those footprints were made by Patty. Even if those footprints were genuine(made by an actual bigfoot), that doesn't necessarily mean that they were made by Patty. It could be that Patty was actually just a person in a costume, but those tracks were made by an actual bigfoot. It could be that Patterson and Gimlin faked those tracks, but Patty was real. The point is, those tracks can't be used as evidence for Patty being a real Bigfoot because there's no film footage to show that they're connected. And any reasons can be given as to why there's no footage of Patty being the one that actually made those footprints, but they're all irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether you like this or not, that's just how evidence works. However, the footprints CAN be used against some claims, regarding Patty. I posted a link in the PGF section of this forum that demonstrates how it can be used to do that.

A local young family contacted me recently, after seeing the latest episode (#3) of Small Town Monsters - Sasquatch Quest, about getting to some of the sighting locations, so Thomas, MagniAesir, and I are taking them on a road trip to several of the sites along the west side of Harrison Lake tomorrow. They seem pretty excited about getting out there, so I hope we don't dissapoint them. Bill (MagniAseir) and I are in the planning stages of an epic late summer road trip from our homes near the southern border of BC all the way to the Arctic Ocean, at Tuktoyaktuk, NWT. We don't expect to encounter Sasquatch there, but we should see just about every other type of northern critter, moose, caribou, grizzly, maybe even muskox or polar bear. It's a bucket list trip for Bill, and I'm excited to come along!

The only thing that's been proven in this thread is that you are a fool.

I don't understand your concern about someone "gutting" the PGF. It stood the test of time here on BFF under an electron-microscope type analysis and it is entirely irrelevant who Patterson and Gimlin were personally. Go ahead and try to destroy their reputation. It doesn't change the fact that a video is out there every aspect of which has been analyzed here at BFF over the many years. In my opinion, anyone who wishes to claim the PGF was a hoax has to specifically disprove Gigantofootecus' ASH ratio calculations and Patty's forearm ratio. Not knowing those two issues intimately, much less at all, tells me everything I need to know about someone's ability to intelligently discuss the PGF. Moreover, have they read Bill's Munn's works, which, in my opinion, are a veritable treatise on the PGF, or even know who he is? There are many people who have opinions about a lot of things they possess little or no knowledge. Let them come here and debate both critical, and tangential, issues of the PGF itself.

(I did upvote you, and yes, I might be a bit touchy...........it has been a horrible winter, and I'm still waiting for spring up here in the sub-arctic)

The PGF could be a hoax. I could accept that conclusion if I had enough proof. I can imagine someone might do a trail run of a hoax. They might film it and take a look at the results to make sure it is convincing or make corrective actions if it not. Then later after such a tweaking they either film the hoax or film a few more attempts at prepping until they get it right. Maybe they have one rehearsal. Maybe they have 4 or 5. Some or all might be filmed. If filmed, the films would have to be developed somewhere. If I have followed this saga correctly, we are to think the trial run(s) was developed at Boeing aircraft. <--- This makes little sense. If we can come up with a reason why this might make sense, we still have to explain why it seems Boeing had no way to develop this. <--- That is too much of a deal breaker to the buzz of this new film story. If it could be shown Boeing could develop the film (and I doubt it) it somewhat helps Roger's cause by providing him help on the controversial PGF development timeline. Now there could be a trial run but they got the development part of the story wrong. That is, you could have a film where Roger and Al made a pre-PGF hoax attempt(s), but it was developed somewhere other than Boeing. Those with the Trail Run film assumed it was developed and Boeing. The PGF may be real or a hoax as far as I am concerned. Yet, I seriously doubt 1) any film was able to be developed at Boeing. 2) The hoaxers would be so incompetent to film their effort to commit some fraud/ hoax and leave the major smoking gun evidence around to be discovered. They would destroy any film like that. They certainly are not going to film themselves planning on committing the crime and then suddenly forget to get rid of the evidence. I will await the see this film for myself to reserve any final judgment, but I want to see the entire work product- not some edited portions offered.

There is no set number. What it takes is enough evidence of a crime to convict someone. It would be the jury was just hell bent on the fact they just think the guy is guilty and the evidence is irrelevant no matter how much or how little. If reports were proof, we would have enough to equal proof. Reports are just a promising sign of a sighting. Multiple reports just mean multiple people are reporting something. If Roger and Bob were two people with no film reporting the event they would just be 2 more names added to any lists of a lot of reports. With all these reports it seems we have very few films/ videos at least no other PGF-level films. Until we link some really good video with some of these reports the Bigfoot issue is just in a holding pattern.