Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 01/22/2018 in all areas

  1. 9 points
    I missed this earlier. And I will give credit where credit is due. Dmaker is speaking the truth. As for the rest of it? I dont play Dungeons and Dragons. I dont hang out on Dungeons and Dragons forums and tell them how dumb they are wasting their lives playing it. And I dont belong to a anti Dungeons and Dragons forum where we talk about Dungeons and Dragons players and how dumb they are to waste their time playing the game..... Why? Because its an even dumber waste of time....... And I will say this. Anytime your in the back country for any reason? Its not role play.... No matter if I’m scouting for Elk tracks or Bigfoot tracks? The trails are just as narrow, the cliffs are just as tall, and the rivers are just as wide. I dont care if your scouting for pink unicorns and leprachauns? One slip may be the end. No joke. Its no game. I’ve had horses roll over me and crack ribs, Mules upside down in creeks, bucked off, hypothermia at 10,000 feet in the Bighorns of Idaho in late October. This isnt a “game” for pot smoking, cheetos munching, kids rolling fantasy dice in their parents basement. Bgfoot may be a myth. I dont know for myself. But the rest of it? Is stark reality. I dont even know if you dont live in western north America? If you really even comprehend it. And no that one summer trip to Yellowstone doesnt count. And I guess thats why I bristle at the notion that this is just a role playing game. It may be for some? Sitting around the campfire at some state park campsite in Ohio and tell spooky Bigfoot stories while eating smores, do some wood knocks and whoops, listen to forest sounds and get freaked out together and convince each other that Coyote howl isnt really a Coyote at all...... yah I get the comparison. Thats not me. Try rolling out of your bed roll at 2am in the morning 50 miles from the trail head because the Stock are going ape shit on the highline. You know Griz are in the area as well as Blacks, Wolves, Cougars......because you have seen their tracks, or them. Your out there in your long johns with a rifle and a flashlight...... by yourself. I dont care how skeptical you are..... in the back of your mind? Bigfoot may just be a myth to you sleeping in your warm bed. But out there in the vast wilderness, in the pitch black, when you know something is out there? He haunts the recesses of your mind. He does mine. And I dont have any problem admitting it. When I crawl out of that tent I am ready to face anything with a metallic taste in my dry mouth. I can control my fear but I will not lie and tell you its not there. Its always there. Maybe its because of some ancient artifact in my DNA. Maybe its the experience I had as a child. Maybe its because I too ate smores and listened to stories around the campfire as a kid. Illogical or not? Its there. I would be lying otherwise. And I bet you my bottom dollar? That these scofftic JREFers? Deep down, way down inside, in the pitch black on that camping trip when a heavy branch snaps close to camp? Its there as well. Its visceral. And its probably why they hang around here..... Its like a morbid fascination that they just cannot tear themselves away from. Or maybe its just because they like to make fun of us weak minded folks that cannot 86 it like they can!
  2. 7 points
    More likely, given the behavior you've shown here, they simply say what you want to hear so they don't face your ridicule. MIB
  3. 7 points
    I must respond to this remark, because it is a serious under-estimation of the factual conclusions the film provides. It isn’t just that we know for a certainty the film exists. We know for a certainty what kind of film stock was used (Kodachrome II) and what kind of camera was used by Roger (a Kodak K-100 single lens model). These are relevant because Roger had experience filming with both Kodachrome and Ektachrome, so he had some familiarity with processing each, how easily Ektachrome is processed by many labs, vs how few process Kodachrome. And Roger had a good familiarity with various 16mm cameras, as evidenced by his other documentary footage, showing he used a variety of cameras and lenses, including zoom lenses. No experienced filmmaker would have gone to Bluff Creek to try and hoax a film without a plan to do multiple takes. Roger was, in 1967, an experienced filmmaker. So if he was hoaxing a film, with riders on horses for the first part of the reel and then the encounter on the end, but wanted to do multiple tries of the encounter, he would not have chosen a K-100 camera. He needed a magazine camera, like John Green used for McClarin’s walk, so he could set up for the horse and rider segments, film take one with magazine one, load magazine two and shoot the horse and riders, then load magazine three and shoot horse and riders, and maybe load magazine four and shoot horse and riders. Then he could go to Bluff Creek and suit up his talent, and shoot take one of the encounter with magazine one, shoot a second encounter try with magazine two, and so on, so he had four magazines with four tries of the encounter following horse and rider stuff. He could not have done so with a K-100 camera, to a factual certainty. There is simply no way you can shoot a partial roll, then pull it out, load another roll of film to shoot a partial roll, and later put the first roll back in to shoot more, and not have a glaring overlap or a big gaping dead spot of black film, using a K-100. However, you can do it easily and undetectably with a magazine camera. Now you have several rolls with several tries of the encounter, and you don’t know which one is the good one, so you need to process them all. But if they are all Kodachrome, then they’ll all likely go to the same lab, and a lab technician will likely see the multiple tries, so as soon as you go public claiming a single real encounter, the lab people know it’s a lie, and maybe a fraud. Not good. better to send each single roll to a different lab, but to do so, having a choice of several labs, you should shoot Ektachrome, because more labs process it. So each lab gets one roll, and never sees the others. Then when the event is publicized, no lab people can claim they saw multiple takes, meaning it was staged. But to pull this off, you need a magazine camera, and Ektachrome film stock, and Roger used neither. These are facts. The camera and film Roger used was the worst possible combination for hoaxing a film, and Roger had enough knowledge of films and cameras to choose the right ones if he was hoaxing the film. Then you have the facts, irrefutable facts, of the six segments of starts and stops, the camera first frame light overexposures intact, and a copy process that together certifies to a factual certainty that the film was never edited before the initial copying. Then you have the issue of Roger starting his camera while walking forward, which one would do only in a spontaneous and frenzied situation. A person filming with calm deliberation would start the camera and then start walking. You have the Third segment with only two frames, and a strange rotational motion blur (irrefutable facts) that requires a camera operator to do something that is nearly impossible to do deliberately, and can only be done by someone accidentally holding the camera while slipping and trying to regain his balance. You have segment four, where Roger Starts the camera while still climbing up the creek bank incline, which can only be described as an act of desperation to get footage, something a person in control of the situation would not do. You have the issue where segment five, the lookback, has Roger planted and holding the camera as steady as a hand held camera can be, so he gets the clearest shot of his subject, no shaking, no motion blur, and no obstacles blocking his view, so we can examine the subject body meticulously. This defeats the argument Roger deliberately shook the camera to hide any flaws of his costume. He did everything perfectly to insure we can examine it splendidly. The film has no errors of time or continuity, which people deliberately filming always make. The film has no errors which modern analysis could find and a filmmaker in 1967 could never anticipate would be used. The facts of this film are many and are absolute in their certainty. The evidence for a hoax never rises to a similar level of factual certainty.
  4. 6 points
    Isn't that the whole purpose of this thread? Trying to step up to the plate? Despite the cat calls? Lets get some things straight people. 1) This is a Bigfoot Forum. We discuss things pertaining to Bigfoot...yes? 2) Hiflier has the right as a tax payer to petition his government and his academia who recieves government funding to answer questions he has asked. No matter how ridiculous any person deems them to be. 3) Hiflier does not deserve to be called a “nutjob” or any other names on our forum, just because he is trying to share his findings with us, or defend himself from the caterwauling. 4) If you dont like Hiflier or what he is doing? Don't participate in his thread. Go start your own thread about “Dumb footies asking dumb questions to science” or “I got first place at the science fair in junior high, I am awesome!” Or whatever turns your crank..... 5) Please, please put scofftics on ignore if they bother you. They are trolling you! If it was up to them.....this forum would die a quick death because the Smithsonian says nothing is out there. We are just a bunch of dumb rubes....and they must continue to tell themselves this to inflate their egos. 6) Just because we do not have dead body doesnt mean we cannot analyze and pursue the evidence we do have. I personally do not hold much hope. But I think its great someone is..... Some scientists such as Krantz, Bindernagel, Meldrum and Mionczynski believed the PGF showed a real animal. Maybe there are others....and maybe that scares some people.
  5. 6 points
    Oh c'mon! You're selling yourself short! You get mocked for a bunch of other reasons too!
  6. 6 points
    Better? No, it displays utter ignorance of the people you're insulting via your assumptions. I am ignorant of neither biology nor science in general. Likely more qualified than you are, for instance, although that might be self-damnation by faint praise. I have no idea whether you're competent to engage in the conversation. MIB
  7. 6 points
    Typically such groups do not make it to their cars here on their own. They underestimate how long a hike takes, start too late in the day, if asked have no idea when sunset is, are under dressed for the weather, often are completely unaware a weather system is moving in, and have no means to start a fire. . They rely on their phones for navigation, then when it gets dark they use them as flashlights and finally call for help. Usually running their batteries completely dead. Search parties are formed and it takes half the night to find them and walk them out getting them out at close to or at dawn. Week after week it happens in the Columbia Gorge. Not so often now as most of the trails are closed due to the Gorge fires. I do for the most part solo research. I am aware of the risks. Bear, cougar, other humans, and BF themselves add to the overall risk. Have had bullets whistling over my head, confronted by a cougar, bear encounters, and cornered a BF who growled at me with displeasure. Out in the wind, a falling tree is always a danger. Those are all knowns but can happen without any warning. . It is the unknown that probably worries me the most. Hard to avoid something unknown to you. But on the other side of the coin, I move very quietly, can stop and listen often, make human smell proportional to one person, not several, and present myself in a not threatening manner. Have pretty well have worked out BF contact protocols that have worked up to this point. Not that I discovered them, but simply use what Native Americans have found works for them. Two words describe the NA contact philosophy. " Respectful deference." When I have deviated from that, is when they expressed displeasure with me. Corner one, trying to get it to break cover and you will find out what I mean. But quite frankly at my age, to have some misfortune in the woods, sounds like a much better way to go out than drowning from pneumonia in a hospital bed. I nearly took that route after Christmas.
  8. 5 points
    norseman, I'm Native...I consider sasquatch to be a real animal. I've also talked to quite a few Natives who believe they are real, an I've talked to Natives who claimed to have seen one, as well as talking to a few Natives who told me of other Natives who have seen them. I spoke with one Native guy who didn't like talkin' about his sightin', it simply bothered him. He was out huntin' one mornin', heard somethin' movin' on the hill parallel to him, in the mornin' mist he found himself lookin' at a sasquatch carrying a large stick. He seen it clear as, no mistakes, he froze, it froze, he stepped, it stepped, it scared the s out of him so he turned an left, not lookin' back. Only reason he told me was because of my sister-in-law knowin' him well, she told him I was honest in my interest in the subject. I know a Native Elder, a Chief, who told me of knowing Charlie Mack an his brothers, he told me of a sightin' in a creek where the elders were campin' durin' a huntin' trip. Talked to another Native who told me of his friend or relative(it's been a bit), who was countin' salmon, they float down the rivers, he saw one on all fours on the shore, it was lookin at him as he looked at it while he floated downstream. The guy showed me how the guy showed him how it was movin', which was like bein' in the middle of a push up, an then you start walkin away on all fours kinda low, arse up, hands an toes. Talked to another Native, a carver, asked him if he'd heard stories, said he had a friend seen one jump out of a tree, wasn't much to the story, besides his friend bein' freaked out. Reckon there's a few more I could recall. An for the record...I've talked to a few white folks who also consider them to be real animals. I always smile thinkin' of a elderly couple near Whiskey Creek if I recall, one of the local store owners had mentioned they had claimed a sightin'. So I went an said hi, the gentleman said he an his wife were drivin' home, seen a grey or brown big upright somethin' walk across the highway. I recall the wife slappin' his arm, said it was the other colour(brown or grey) as her husband was colour blind. I can't recall the colour she'd confirmed, one or the other. I asked her if she recalled what she saw, she said, big, upright, hairy, said it all happened quick. They mentioned it like you'd mention a neighbours dog barkin' all night, like it just happened is all. I can't confirm their sightin's...but I can state I know Natives who consider these animals to be real based on their own sightin's. An...like I said...this Native considers sasquatch/bigfoot a real thing...a as yet unclassified primate. Pat...
  9. 5 points
    I was just informed that grizzly and black bear have not been tested for hearing. I guess that no one is brave enough to try to get a grizzly to wear the headphones.
  10. 5 points
    I half-way think it would be best if the Forum appended these disclaimers to the Rules. (At least it might somewhat render even more unnecessary the redundant comments from the trollers): 1. YES, we know to date there has been no widely accepted confirmation of a BF bone, tissue or body part. 2. YES, we know that any photographic and/or film, and/or video depiction purporting to show a BF doesn't confirm the species. 3. YES, we know some people hoax BF evidence, including tracks. 4. YES, we realize that no matter how many people report an encounter with a BF, those never will confirm the species. 5. YES, we have access to a calendar, and we know how many years have elapsed since the P/G film was made. 6. YES, we know to date there is no widely accepted analysis of a unique DNA sequence tending to confirm the species. 7. YES, we know our telling others about our own encounters will not confirm the species. 8. AND if you are not willing to let these axioms go unsaid, and you still find it necessary to repeat them at every opportunity, we will ignore you as you do not contribute anything substantive or new to the discussion.
  11. 5 points
    I'd like to take issue with that statement. (and then I'd like to get back to my popcorn and chuckling at you from the sidelines)
  12. 5 points
    “One indicator of the solidity of the science...the skeptics/"critical thinkers" won't go anywhere near it. They cannot refute, or even deal with it. Hence...it's solid.” If your using the reactions of internet message board skeptics as validation for your “science” I kind of hardly doubt it is real science. Then again some of the “science” you speak of is posting pics of Patty next to basketball players......
  13. 4 points
    I can make such judgments because I have personal experience with BF. Some of the claims by habituators are hard to believe, even for proponents. Those claims include English speaking BF, BF being impossible to photograph, winking in and out of existence, and the ability remotely to disable electronic devices. All stuff you likely think are bunk. Well so do I, because I have experienced none of it even though I have a limited history of BF encounters. Some of these might be possible, like speaking English, but the other claims I have not experienced. Until I do, I am as skeptical as you are. As a I often mention, I came into BF research very skeptical about the whole thing. Only when something rings true based on my own experience, do I give it much credence. But I do not dismiss everything out of hand. That is not science but a dogmatic belief system, which skeptics and proponents both can be guilty of doing.
  14. 4 points
    Do you actually want to discuss your plan or just have everyone pat you on the back and agree with you?
  15. 4 points
    The JREFers are a cult of science geeks who cannot think in anything but absolutes. And they toe the cult line. Dissention in the ranks brings on ridicule of being illogical or irrational. As they debate each other they critique each others spelling and sentence structure. As if a online forum post was the final for a English major...... I think they all have a Spock altar in their garage. They are timid souls who do not dare stray from the herd. The whole rotten edifice is built on a lie. Mr. Randi’s life partner lived in the US for decades under a stolen identity. While Mr. Randi busted spoon tricks and mind readers and built a name for himself as a champion of TRUTH. I would never associate myself with James Randi or his forum. All a man has to go on in life are his own observations. And there is plenty of knowledge left undiscovered. I adhere to no way of thinking outside of what I have thought heavily on for myself. And what makes sense to me. Be an independent thinker. Be self reliant. Be strong and stand up for what you believe. Wouldnt last a week on a online forum? I would walk into a room face to face with 20 of them and lock the door behind me. I DO NOT hide my identity or where I live. I do not potshot people online from behind a mask. I speak the truth from my own perspective. Friends and family know that I participate on a BIGFOOT forum. Most JREFers would be horrorified if anyone found out their true identity. Even as scofftics on this forum. I am NOT a knower, but I leave the question open in my mind. And its no skin off my nose to be in the mountains keeping my eyes peeled for sign. As a Hunter that is my passion regardless...... And I’m attacked from all angles....beleivers and scoffers alike. Which means that I am in the center of the ring. RIGHT WHERE I LIKE TO BE!
  16. 4 points
    I admire your youthful outlook Nathan! My 67 years have taught me great tolerance for what seems immutable and for the thoughtful views of those who see things differently. I do not ignore a few members here, those I term "scofftics", because I fear debate but because they bore me (as do the usual responses to their predictable posts). Retirement gives me the option, by and large, of avoiding things and people that bore me to tears, and there are so many interesting things in this universe.
  17. 4 points
    All of which are no substitute for a firearm......
  18. 4 points
    Why should anyone care to answer someone who doesn't care and has a consistent history of stating so? And for the record, writing like a twelve year old girl should not be construed as some kind of slam. There are more intelligent, well written, and unbelievably smart 12 year old girls out there who would challenge your holding them up as some kind of inferior mentality. Talk about immature, you take the cake. In other words, I don't care about your opinions. The 12 year old girl remark really sucked and just proves you're incapable of engaging any adult in anything close to an adult dialogue by stooping that low in such a callous and thoughtless fashion. And if you thought it was somehow a demeaning thing to compare someone's writing to a 12 year old girl you have really lost your grip and your edge. Clean it up or get lost. And if you don't care to agree it would be typical of you.
  19. 4 points
    I don't care if people believe my story because it is just that, a long and detailed story. I have no proof that it happened so I am not going to preach that Bigfoot is / isn't real because I think so. This seems to be more of your territory, don't you think ? We have talked about assumptions in another thread Squatchy, you need to be able to remove the person from the conversation and address with logical points. Rolling around a post stating " I don't believe you because I don't believe in Bigfoot " does not follow any standard and simply puts you at risk of sounding ridiculous. If you spend time on a forum about Bigfoot and make a claim, be prepared to defend it with a legitimate answer.
  20. 4 points
    Synopsis of interview with Ernie Duncan, former station manager at KIMA, Yakima On April 20, 2016, I spoke with Ernie Duncan. I explained my examination into the processing questions surrounding Roger Patterson's film. He immediately indicated no processing for 16mm color film existed in Yakima at that time. It had to be processed in Seattle if not one of the major cities across the US. Mr. Duncan said that “if such an event had happened to me, I’d have headed to the nearest big city down there to get it processed”. Mr. Duncan began talking about a photographer at KIMA who would have additional knowledge about the processing, a fellow named Jerry Clarke. Mr. Duncan said he was trained as a photographer for KIMA, then moved to a sister station in Pasco (KEPR TV), then back to Yakima KIMA where he eventually became studio director. He left KIMA in 1976. He said KIMA used 16mm black and white film till 1970-1971. It was at that time KIMA installed a film processor for 16mm EKTACHROME color film, a process he came to know well. He instructed other members of KIMA in the use of the EKTACHROME system. We discussed different film processing services and he seemed to remember Cine Alpha as a possibility for Kodachrome processing in those days. Mr. Duncan suggested I try to contact a KIMA photographer named Duffy Platter who might know more about history within the photography circles in Yakima (confirmed deceased). He indicated Duffy Platter had an associate named “Jim” who knew Roger Patterson well and had indicated he had been recruited to work for Patterson. We discussed five individuals associated with KIMA as well as the different changes of ownership of the station over the years. I reviewed with Mr. Duncan the alleged timeline of the Patterson film, being shot on a Friday and then shown in Yakima on the following Sunday afternoon. Mr. Duncan responded, “If you shot Kodachrome, even still film, it was many days before getting it back. (Movie) film would have been worse. In those days Kodachrome processing was in the big cites but not in Yakima”. I asked if it was such a difficult film to process it couldn’t have been done in a garage someplace. “Absolutely, I have processed a lot of EKTACHROME over the years but in the case of Kodachrome, it went to the big lab.” We exchanged contact information for future conversation.
  21. 4 points
    Pastor ROLLIN SWANSON, now-retired Lutheran Pastor On 042216 I called Pastor Swanson at his home in Richland, Washington. I was interested in his contact with Roger Patterson back in 1972. Pastor Swanson said he had been doing general hospital visitation in January, 1972, and remembered visiting Roger at the Yakima hospital just prior to his death. He had not known Roger personally but had been told by a member of his congregation that Roger was in the hospital with a terminal condition. Pastor Swanson said he stopped in and talked with Roger several times. He said he found Roger to be a gracious and fine gentleman. I asked Pastor Swanson if Roger made any mention of bigfoot during those visits. Pastor Swanson said he didn’t remember anything in detail. He did, however, remember asking “Roger, do you really believe in the reality of Bigfoot?” Without hesitation Roger answered “Oh, Yes, absolutely, there is no question about it!” (Throughout our conversation Pastor Swanson described himself to me as being skeptical about the existence of bigfoot). Apparently word got out that he (Swanson) had visited Roger in the hospital during his last days so the family asked Pastor Swanson if he would conduct the committal service following Roger’s death. Pastor Swanson did so, remembering the service being well-attended and the chapel full. I asked Pastor Swanson if he knew any of the friends or family of Roger Patterson. He said he did not, that he only knew of Roger from the fame generated by the film. He indicated his wife probably knew Bob Gimlin from high school days as they attended the same school. The pastor seemed to think he met Bob Gimlin at the committal service but did not know him otherwise.
  22. 4 points
    Currently there are 4 members on this board claiming to be in regular contact with BF. Some on a daily basis. Why don't you go ask any one of them what 'searching-what-is-required?' and stop blaming skeptics for the lack of discovery.
  23. 4 points
    I'm celebrating my 72nd birthday (tomorrow) by being able to start a new topic! now that I'm over 25 posts. I am grateful for the opportunity to learn about people's experiences that were so outside the "norm" they're reluctant to tell anyone else about them. A shout out to all of you who share your sightings, your expertise in everything from technology to legal matters, and your fears when you had a sighting or had rocks thrown at you. For people like Highflier who spends countless hours analyzing BF and posting thoughts on what to do if someone comes across BF remains -- even though he says he hasn't had an encounter. For the many members in the PGF thread who post thoughtful content without demeaning others' comments and character. For moderators who try to drill into folks the rules of not demeaning others, while encouraging critical debate. Your efforts have made my day many times over, since I started a year and a half ago.
  24. 4 points
    Here is that Feb '68 issue of Argosy, my brother printed it out for me, 13 pages...free...
  25. 4 points
    I am not surprised. I am not surprised. Step one: Say you don't see it no matter how clear an obvious. Step two: Smile big and move on with life since the effect of not seeing the obvious frees on of addressing the obvious. I think most people would agree the toe area on the enhanced view of the foot point upward on the foot walking. Now you might choose to explain this by some man made reason. Fine. But to say you don't see this effect at all is a surprise. My main point you pretend to understand on the lack of a suit- making success is really pretty damaging to what might be some other good skeptic world points. I can see why you might not want to talk about it. Here is a quick review for those other posters who may wish to: Stan Winston: Never made a suit and make it clear the suit result on the PGF is no big deal. Said it could be made for $200 but never does this and no one else ever does this. Is actually impressed with the elementary Alien Autopsy which was pretty obviously a fake. He says he maintained the AA was fake from the beginning. Chris Walas: Actually spent some time on the BFF so the area of interests was there. Stated he thought the PGF used a snap crotch and hip wader type mech. based on his look of the PGF. He never offer up and example of this method and never made any suit to show how easy it was to fake. We might expect him to since he was spending time on the actual bigfoot site discussing it and proposing a solution. later via poster Kit on the BFF Walas offers up some pics to Kit. We don't know the level of honesty beyond that as Kit is the only source of the pics and anything Kit attributes to Walas on 'wally' may be true or not. Rick Baker: Here is the beauty. He made it clear he was near shame of his 1976 King Kong attempt and credits lighting and editing by the director to make the film and suit even passible. Baker states that fans who were upset wit the effort, "I agree with them" This is 10 years nearly after the PGF. Baker would later go on to make Harry but most of his effects where of movements of the face via robots masks. The body remains unimpressive and Ewok like. Baker then does Roger Patterson a huge favor by going on TV and saying the PGF is fake and it was a Morris suit. Somehow though he requires BAKER to make him a bigfoot suit. Baker makes him one never wondering why Morris would need baker to make one. The suit itself is nothing like the PGF even though the whole point was to 1) make a suit maker a suit and 2) say the PGF was a fake suit. His lack of producing anything but a suit that looks like a giant muppet is a massive lay and egg for those open minded watching the show. Packement of X Creatures: This guy actually talks to Hollywood suit people who use an off the rack suit for make their PGF recreation. He doesn't have them replicate a suit but tries to sell the PGF as a fake since his reproduction is a great match in his mind and peddles the idea that Gimln was actually tricked by Roger that day somehow not realizing this 1967 suit is a suit. Roger used Bob as a witness. But what about the suit? What suit. They didn't make one. Somehow Packman has enough money to stay in cheap hotels and so on but no money to spend the $200 Stan Winston states it would take to make the suit. Peter Brooke: After talking about the PGF, he never once said it was a fake. He showed how some of the things he sees could have been done and demonstrates these things which is more than Walas and Winston were willing to do. He then makes it clear none of this was available in 1967 and states he doesn't know how they would do this back then. States "if it was a hoax..." Munns: "She is the real deal" Jonas Prohaska: He did not think the PGF was a man- made effort. He was a man who working in that industry at the time and specifically was a ape suit guy in the movies in 1967 era. A few varied opinions but no suit. No suit. 50 years, no suit. Should Bigfoot exist, I don't know how easy it should be to have another PGF-like encounter. However, should bigfoot not exist making a PGF like bigfoot suit should be one of the easiest things to accomplish.
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-05:00