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

[Doc Holliday]

Tim,

patty was before they found out about the health benefits of a low fat,low cholesterol diet. .

todays BF is much more health conscience...less pancakes / dumpster diving and more salmon,almonds & blueberries makes for a leaner,meaner squatch.

[Oonjerah]

When I posted Bill Munns' site link about the 1967 PGF film (on an RWD

forum where Bf is known as silliness), I was totally unaware that an

equally famous Hollywood artist had the opposite opinion & was just as

sure of his conculsion.

From TV's "Best Evidence," season 1, Bigfoot =>

Here Jeff Meldrum says, "the costume that we had at our disposal today,

which was a fairly elaborate costume, paled by comparison to the anatomical

details that were evident in the Patterson-Gimlin film."

But here's the dissent:

Oscar-winning special effects & make-up master, Richard E. Smith: "Assum-

ing that this is a put up job, they didn't do a very good job at it." & "I would say,

this is a hoax." "big, bulky human in a suit."

Who created the suit?

"Johnny Chambers, who was the Hollywood make-up artist of much fame" & who

had done "Planet of the Apes" released 1968, after the Patterson/Gimlin film.

I have often thought that, if you're sure it's a hoax, you probably would assume

that Patti was wearing a gorilla suit from "Planet of the Apes." But since a lotta

folks are able to watch Patti & see a really shabby suit with an obvious zipper in it

... I'd be in the minority to credit Johnny Chambers with providing a superior suit.

Chambers' Gorillas, btw, have heads at least 50% larger than Patti's.

Patti is old, fat, apparently a bit infirm. That's why she was seen when she didn't

wanna be.

=====================

But what do I really think?

Munns has the eye of an artist; Smith does not. I know this because I am also an

artist, and a good one. Most artists see better, deeper, than a non-artist does.

For me, it's like listening to musicians play by ear, jam, improvise. It is obvious to

me that their affinity for music is a gift, a genius.

The mind's eye of a good artist is that kind of gift.

Patti was not wearing the Chambers' best Hollywood gorilla suit of the day.

To believe that she was speaks from a sort of mental blindness -- a common

limit for the non-artists of the world. To see a shabby suit with an obvious

zipper in it is a more intentional blindness.

In fact, the best criticism of Patti's "suit" that I've heard is, "The bottom of her foot!

It looks like a shoe!"

Edited January 22, 2013 by Oonjerah

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Hitting a little on what PsyShroom said about skeptic's, and some of what Slick said about the new BF being more health conscience, and I am only using these as a loose base for what I am saying.

I got to wonder sometimes why it's us Skeptic's or Non believers in my case that keep getting accused of hurting this BF subject so much, maybe it is the believers themselves that cannot come up with at least one close description of what BF really is, over the years it sure has changed and keeps changing, at least we on the other side stay pretty constant with our look on it, I got to say it sure gets hard trying to keep up with all the different squatches in this world.

To the tune of Armour hot dogs

Squatches, all these squatches

what kind of squatch do you like

fat squatches, skinny squatches

squatches that climb on rocks

tough squatches, sissy squatches

even squatches that unlock locks

we love squatches, all kinds of squatches

what kind of squatch do you like.

Tim ~

[Doc Holliday]

there certainly are inconsistencies tim, i agree.

as for a leaner meaner etc of course my earlier post was in humor.

to be honest im fairly skeptical of much of what comes out of the BF crowd & agree with many of your observations.

if it werent for my own "maybes" long ago & the reports from credible every day folks with no BF agenda i doubt i'd give the topic much thought at all.

Edited January 22, 2013 by slicktrick

[Guest]

Easy answer there, which I will answer with a question of my own:

Why don't two humans look alike? got fat ones, skinny ones, etc.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Easy answer there, which I will answer with a question of my own:

Why don't two humans look alike? got fat ones, skinny ones, etc.

Good question if we were talking humans, what has been the norm for many years is BF resembles a monkey or gorilla, those species look very similar and are hard to tell apart to the average Joe.

Tim

[Guest Kerchak]

In fact, the best criticism of Patti's "suit" that I've heard is, "The bottom of her foot!

It looks like a shoe!"

I know. Ridiculous. It's clearly mud/sand/soil clinging to her wet feet (she was by the creek). The left foot even has more muck on the bottom than the right foot and in one of the frames you can see this muck spreading up to and over the heel. Her feet are the same tone as the surrounding substratum. It's just soil.

Thinking back on some old discussions from years ago about the film and how lethargic she looked, I still wonder why anyone would think Patty is fluid anything, for a film that is supposed to be about the lean and mean agile creature Bigfoot, she sure is pretty fat looking and hardly something that could blast through a forest with blinding speed, it looks like her walk is about the best she could do besides maybe a short sprint at best, not the bullet dodging creature we hear about these days.

Tim

I think you are confusing speed with fluidity. You can be not going at 90 miles an hour yet still look fluid, comfortable and at east with your locomotion. That's how Patty looks. She doesn't look like her body and movement are alien to each other like Blevins does with his bulky suit and stiff awkward movements. If Patty was a man in a suit then her body (ie the suit) and her locomotion with that compliant bent legged gait is not natural.......yet the locomotion looks completely natural and at home in it's environment. She looks well 'suited' to her appearance.

Show me any man in a bigfoot costume that looks as fluid and as comfortable moving as Patty does. There are hundreds to choose from. You won't find any like that.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

I think you are confusing speed with fluidity.

I know you have confused my post with comparing suits ~ lol Patty is a fat squatch, she might be fluid, but hardly the stealthy speed demon of the woods, that's all I am saying, it raises questions, at least to me anyhow.

Tim

[southernyahoo]

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.

I tend to contrast this idea with the skeptical argument that we would have a dozen PGF films by now if the first was real. Replication and lack of it, is the burden of both sides of a debate.

[Guest Kerchak]

I know you have confused my post with comparing suits ~ lol Patty is a fat squatch, she might be fluid, but hardly the stealthy speed demon of the woods, that's all I am saying, it raises questions, at least to me anyhow.

Tim

I'd say Patty is bulky and muscled rather than fat and she didn't need to run like the wind. She got away from P and G by just walking at a decent clip. I don't think most reports claim they move as fast as cheetahs. In the woods, a few quick steps (as Patty takes) can see them safely lost in the trees.

By the way, I've long thought that Patty had possibly observed P and G in the days before (they were riding up and down the creek and feeder creeks daily and would have been in plain sight often)and though not wanting to have anything to do with them, she probably wasn't frightened of them due to 'kind of' getting used to them being around. Maybe it put her off her guard?

I still say her locomotion is fluid, comfortable, looks at ease in her surroundings and very very natural...which is something I've never seen from any man in a bigfoot/bipedal ape suit.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Kerchak

[Guest]

I think the image of "Patty" has come to mean "this is what a bigfoot looks like" in the collective consciousness. It prejudices our opinions, that all bigfoots are heavy and slow and apelike and non-aggressive. It seems almost like she just doesn't care all that much that the men are there. She does pick up her feet in a weird way, btw, which would be hard to replicate. I think they got lucky because Patty IS heavy and slow and non-aggressive.

I sometimes wonder what our opinions would have been if Patterson and Gimlin had instead filmed a 9-foot tall, 800-lb bigfoot built like a linebacker with ripped stomach/arm/leg muscles crossing the creek into the woods in 3 seconds flat at a dead run. What would our image of all bigfoot be then? I think we'd be much more cautious and less casual about it all if that were the case. We would realize we are looking for a creature with the potential to be much more dangerous on average, than "Patty".

Edited January 22, 2013 by madison5716

[Cotter]

Hitting a little on what PsyShroom said about skeptic's, and some of what Slick said about the new BF being more health conscience, and I am only using these as a loose base for what I am saying.

I got to wonder sometimes why it's us Skeptic's or Non believers in my case that keep getting accused of hurting this BF subject so much, maybe it is the believers themselves that cannot come up with at least one close description of what BF really is, over the years it sure has changed and keeps changing, at least we on the other side stay pretty constant with our look on it, I got to say it sure gets hard trying to keep up with all the different squatches in this world.

To the tune of Armour hot dogs

Squatches, all these squatches

what kind of squatch do you like

fat squatches, skinny squatches

squatches that climb on rocks

tough squatches, sissy squatches

even squatches that unlock locks

we love squatches, all kinds of squatches

what kind of squatch do you like.

Tim ~

Hi RRS:

Species will look differently depending on the region they inhabit as well as through species diversity.

Compare a white-tail deer from Iowa vs Florida. They do not have the same size, (body or antlers).

Are those pics I posted of the same species?

[norseman]

I'd say Patty is bulky and muscled rather than fat and she didn't need to run like the wind. She got away from P and G by just walking at a decent clip. I don't think most reports claim they move as fast as cheetahs. In the woods, a few quick steps (as Patty takes) can see them safely lost in the trees.

By the way, I've long thought that Patty had possibly observed P and G in the days before (they were riding up and down the creek and feeder creeks daily and would have been in plain sight often)and though not wanting to have anything to do with them, she probably wasn't frightened of them due to 'kind of' getting used to them being around. Maybe it put her off her guard?

I still say her locomotion is fluid, comfortable, looks at ease in her surroundings and very very natural...which is something I've never seen from any man in a bigfoot/bipedal ape suit.

Pattys thigh is as big as McClarins waist............

I don't care if she appears fat or muscled, the important part is that it would be extremely difficult for Bob Hermonious to put on a suit and even walk with it to add that much bulk.

Whenever I get into a discussion about Patty's size this movie always comes to mind.

[Guest]

If someone ever does find definitive proof, there won't be any delays in getting it out. Their ducks will be in a row, NDA's will be signed, details nailed down because you don't get a peeny until you come forward with proof. Excuses are the easiest way to tell if there is fraud afoot.

[Guest]

Some observers' skepticism relates more to the state of the evidence and not the quantity of reports. There are tens of thousands of witnesses who claim to have seen the creature and there are countless of numbers of inconclusive video, photos, and recordings of howls and knocks. There are also footprints, alleged structures, and other ancillary findings. The amount of this evidence is impressive, but with that staggering quantity, one would expect more in the form of physical evidence. As I understand, the physical proof is limited to a few disputed forensic hair sample studies, purported dermal ridge findings on prints, and some analysis of howls. There are obviously no specimens, bodies, or confirmed tissue samples and nothing in the way of droppings or bodily fluids.

Thus, one could conclude that the scales of evidence just don't balance for a real creature. In this sense, the number of sightings and other unreliable evidence actually cuts against the establishment of proof. With so much of one kind of evidence, it would be natural to inquire as to the reason for the lack of other more tangible proof. I won't speculate on the psychological dynamics of such a phenomenon, but it is a fair question nonetheless.

The two typical responses to this line of reasoning are (1) bigfoot is extremely elusive and intelligent and consciously avoids leaving physical evidence of itself and (2) bigfoot has paranormal abilities. Option number one comes across as the convenient explanation for those who have already decided upon the matter and are only looking for proof to confirm their preconceived conclusion. Option number two is usually dismissed as too fantastic to be seriously considered and most people understandably hesitate to take the discussion in that direction because it is so far outside the parameters of accepted science.

I am not claiming that this discussion represents any original thinking -- many have discussed these issues at great length. It does seem to summarize the current status of the evidence though.