Bigfoot Research – Still No Evidence, But Plenty Of Excuses To Explain Why There’S No Evidence

[Guest DWA]

WSA, it's been only 45 years! Don't rush people like that. The first piece of evidence should show any year/decade/century now. My big problem with proponents. All this rush.

[Guest]

. . . show me the video or film of somebody replicating the hoax of the P/G film . . .

If no one has cared enough to attempt a legitimate replication then the challenge rings a bit hollow. To my knowledge, the only folks who've attempted to make some kind of Patty suit (other than Roger, of course) are Leroy Blevins and Dfoot. Belvins' suit is kind of silly when viewed up close, but he knocked the "apparent great mass" of the PGF out of the park. Dfoot was well on his way to making a good suit when he ran afoul of folks here and got banned. I think some folks think he sabotaged himself here because he reached a point at which he realized he was in over his head and he could never replicate the PGF because there was a real bigfoot in it!

Personally, I've discouraged people (including Dfoot) from trying to replicate the PGF because it is a fool's errand. Without a priori buy-in from diehard fans of the film's authenticity, the criteria for what would amount to a "successful" replication are murky at best. We already know that the materials and the methods to make convincing "ape-man" costumes (even ones that show apparent muscles*) have been around since at least the 1930s. So the question becomes how to make an ape-man suit that "looks like Patty", but what exactly "looks like" means, quantifiably, has never been established.

*muscles are a huge red herring with the PGF. All the "apparent muscle movement" I see in the PGF is on the wrong place or apparently contracting at the wrong time.

[WSA]

I must say Saskeptic, I hadn't heard that rejoinder since my school yard days: :-)

"I could do that anytime I wanted.."

"Oh yeah? Then why don't you just go ahead and do it then?"

"Well, I could, but I just don't want to."

And I'm not talking about just cherry-picking characteristics and then claiming to have done it. Do all of it. The whole enchilada, in a real time video. Heck, I'd settle for a reasonable approximation.

I would think, given the easy and casual dismissal of this evidence it should be the easiest thing in the world to duplicate... a "can of corn" for the skeptic to stick against the opposite field wall for extra bases. Consider the possible reason for the failure of the folks you mentioned to duplicate the film's content.

As to what recreation would pass muster....I dunno. I would have to see one first, and I've been waiting 45 years and counting. I consider we'd probably all be able to agree on Justice Brandeis' standard though: We'll know it when we see it.

[Guest DWA]

Of all the assumptions backed by no actual evidence that I have heard in this field, the one on which to bet the most money would be:

If Patty were capable of duplication it would have been done by now.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

If Patty were capable of duplication it would have been done by now.

I suspect it will be done to a T, soon as someone finds that dam suit,

Tim

[Guest DWA]

Well, it's kinda been 45 years. I think that suit is more hole than suit by now. Actually, I suspect it's been recycled, many times. Nature is that way.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Well, it's kinda been 45 years. I think that suit is more hole than suit by now. Actually, I suspect it's been recycled, many times. Nature is that way.

I have always looked at this as a standoff or tie if you will, it's good enough to be considered real, but not convincing enough to be real. IMHO of course.

Like many others it is what got my started as a kid in 67, so in many ways the film won and did what it was set out to do.

Tim

[Guest]

"I could do that anytime I wanted.."

That's not at all what I wrote.

I wrote that I only know of two attempts to even try to recreate a suit to something like Patterson's hypothetical materials and methods.

In my opinion, both of those attempts were largely successful: Blevins made a fur suit that, if anything, makes the creature look even bulkier than "Patty." (Years ago, people here were arguing that Patty's bulk could not possibly have been replicated through padding.) People usually discount Blevins' suit as a joke because the fur looks very evenly black and for some reason he used a bright white material for the soles of the feet. The result is something that just looks a bit goofy in direct comparison to Patty, but some of the basic elements he nailed. Dfoot made a great-looking suit but folks here lambasted him for not posting a gif of the suit in motion. (If I recall, he showed the undersuit in motion, but not the completed project.) Also, the face on his creation didn't "look like" Patty, so that turned people off as well.

I don't consider these attempts 2 for 2, but I could go as high as a 1 for 2, combining the best elements of both. They certainly show that a dedicated and crafty person could have created some kind of decent apeman suit using 1960s materials.

I look at it this way: Patterson created something unique, and he was quite successful in doing so. My inability to replicate what I think he did doesn't mean that he didn't do it any more than my inability to recreate a David Copperfield illusion or paint a convincing Van Gogh means that magicians and painters don't do the things they do.

[Guest]

That's not at all what I wrote.

I wrote that I only know of two attempts to even try to recreate a suit to something like Patterson's hypothetical materials and methods.

In my opinion, both of those attempts were largely successful: Blevins made a fur suit that, if anything, makes the creature look even bulkier than "Patty." (Years ago, people here were arguing that Patty's bulk could not possibly have been replicated through padding.) People usually discount Blevins' suit as a joke because the fur looks very evenly black and for some reason he used a bright white material for the soles of the feet. The result is something that just looks a bit goofy in direct comparison to Patty, but some of the basic elements he nailed. Dfoot made a great-looking suit but folks here lambasted him for not posting a gif of the suit in motion. (If I recall, he showed the undersuit in motion, but not the completed project.) Also, the face on his creation didn't "look like" Patty, so that turned people off as well.

I don't consider these attempts 2 for 2, but I could go as high as a 1 for 2, combining the best elements of both. They certainly show that a dedicated and crafty person could have created some kind of decent apeman suit using 1960s materials.

I look at it this way: Patterson created something unique, and he was quite successful in doing so. My inability to replicate what I think he did doesn't mean that he didn't do it any more than my inability to recreate a David Copperfield illusion or paint a convincing Van Gogh means that magicians and painters don't do the things they do.

Add to this..we have someone who claims to have worn the suit and passed a lie detector test. To this day, he maintains that story and, in an interview, seemed very credible. Many think he's lying...but it's just another *nail* in the Patterson Hoax scenario coffin.

[WSA]

No, you're right Saskeptic. That isn't what you said, but it is the import of your position,a s I chose to reduce it down to its most basic. But look...the thing on that film is dynamic. To replicate it, the proponent must present the same dyanmic, fluid capabilities. The padding is the easy part, I would imagine. Put all the elements together, as the purported hoaxer did. I'll even spot you s.o.t.a. special effect prosthetics. A "fool's errand?" Indeed it would be from my view, but for different reasons.

And take it one step further. Think of all the fun and mischief our hypothetical hoaxer could then have! No blobsquatch he. (Well, at least if he stayed away from Area X, eh?)

I would give "you" a pass on the attempt Saskeptic. My challenge is to the whole skeptic community. As much skin as we all have in this game, you'd think this would be at the top of their chore list. My best prediction is the failures to hit the mark don't ever see the light of day, and there have been many trys, probably.

[Guest Kerchak]

Add to this..we have someone who claims to have worn the suit and passed a lie detector test.

1. He describes the suit differently depending on who he is talking to.

2. The lie detector test was performing by a known fraudster with a fake PHD called Edward Gelb for a silly ratings grabbing t.v show and nobody independent of this has ever been allowed to examine the 'test results'. When asked to take a lie detector test by Randy Ruegsegger of the credible Northwest Polygraph Examiners Association, Bob Heironimus refused.

To this day, he maintains that story

No, he doesn't maintain the same story. He skips between various different stories and has been PROVEN to be not telling the truth on many different aspects.

Many think he's lying.

We KNOW he's lying about lots of aspects of his claim. This is PROVEN 100%.

..but it's just another *nail* in the Patterson Hoax scenario coffin.

Its no nail at all. Bob H has not one shred of actual evidence to back his claim. In fact his own words screw him up.

Belvins' suit is kind of silly when viewed up close, but he knocked the "apparent great mass" of the PGF out of the park.

No he didn't......because he moved clunky and in a cumbersome awkward manner. Michelin Man type hugely bulky suits can be built, but get the person in said suit to move smoothly and fluidly like Patty and that's where you run into the problems.

Blevins failed utterly to get anywhere near Patty's smooth fluid locomotion.

[Guest]

Wow I just took a peek into this thread and I must say, this place is heavily troll infested. Imo why are all these skeptics posting in a BF forum? No need for that imo! There are plenty of nature/animal forums without BF out there.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Wow I just took a peek into this thread and I must say, this place is heavily troll infested. Imo why are all these skeptics posting in a BF forum? No need for that imo! There are plenty of nature/animal forums without BF out there.

Well what is it, Trolls or Skeptic's, I am confused? If it's trolls, I know Wickie can be a pain in the ass and all, but he means well, I did tell him not to use that cow avatar but he wouldn't listen.

Tim

[Guest]

Wow I just took a peek into this thread and I must say, this place is heavily troll infested. Imo why are all these skeptics posting in a BF forum? No need for that imo! There are plenty of nature/animal forums without BF out there.

Since when does Skeptic=Troll?

[Guest]

Blevins failed utterly to get anywhere near Patty's smooth fluid locomotion.

Pish-posh. I've seen Blevins' suit in motion and it moves just as smoothly as Patterson's.