Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
xspider1

Is There A Better Way To Explain What We See In The Patterson-Gimlin Film?

Recommended Posts

xspider1

Honestly, it could be proven that Roger Patterson and perhaps others intended to, or actually did, hoax a Bigfoot sighting at Bluff Creek and; I still would not be convinced that Patty is a person in a suit. Whereas, it might be interesting to know the truth about the other aspects of the “back storyâ€; I don’t see any of that proving, once and for all, whether or not Patty could have been a real Bigfoot.

So far, when you contrast the efforts to prove that the Creature looks like a person in a suit with the efforts indicating that no other suit looks like that; to me, the logical stand is that we just don’t know what it is. I think there are only two good ways to solve this mystery:

1.) Study and dissect the film itself.

2.) Try to recreate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The film has been disected and analyzed six ways to Sunday. Some people believe it's a man in a suit, some believe it's the real deal. I don't see how the back story investigation will ever prove what is actually on the film, but we'll have to wait and see.

I believe it's a real sasquatch, to me when I hear someone say "man in a suit" I wonder if they watched the same film I did. Lol. I do wish someone would make a real effort at a recreation though. It would be interesting to see a recreated 60s tech film and an HD video taken side by side for comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill

There is no question that a recreation specifically intended as a recreation is valuable in helping us all better determine what it is we se in the PGf. The trick is funding such an effort. It seems almost inevitable the funding will come from some documentary effort, maybe Kit's maybe another.

But such efforts would definitely be valuable.

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ambermae

......to me when I hear someone say "man in a suit" I wonder if they watched the same film I did. Lol.

I agree, it doesn't obviously look like a man in a suit to me, although i believe it could be. I'm undecided to be honest but i think if it is a guy in a suit then that's a bloody good suit! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

In all honesty, I really don't think the back story matters all that much. Why? Yeah, I know that sounds nuts, but follow along.

Roger Patterson was not always the most "upstanding" citizen. Does that mean unbelievable things do not happen, unless you are of the most upstanding character? Nope.

Even if it is proven Roger Patterson was all the things said, we are still left with "what is that on that sandbar in Bluff Creek?" Roger can be the biggest scam artist on the face of the planet, but still no one has been able to definitively "prove" Patty is simply a man in a monkey suit. On the flip side, no one has been able to prove Patty is a bigfoot. Proving either of those questions, has little to do with the back story of the people surrounding the film.

I find too, the back story is only confusing many. I have read arguements over whether Patterson was thrown off his horse or fell, bending the stirrup.. In my mind, answering that question (or arguing about it) wont tell me what Patty is or is not.

Back stories can be useful, if all the players involved are still around - to be questioned. We do not have that with the Patterson film. Roger Patterson is gone, and all we have are his past statements, and stories about him. I have seen some people mis-represent comments made by Patterson and Gimlin, and regardless of what they have said in reference to the statements, these mis-representations are still floating out there as fact.

My money is on whomever comes up with a convincing suit - that is just as convincing as Patty. Can walk like Patty, and do it within the same dollar amount as Roger Patterson was 'said' to have paid. OR, the person who has said (and shown) they tried, but it can not be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

I've maintained that what we see in the PGF is a real animal and not a suit. Please look at the photo I've posted here (thank's to Sweaty Yeti). One of the photos shows a cheap suit. One of these photos is not a cheap suit. In fact it is a somewhat expensive suit made under commission by the very same professional costume maker that claims tohave made the PGF suit. I have to wonder though If said costume maker did make Patty in 1967 his skills after 40+ years have gone retrograde because his commissioned suit was deemed to bad by those who commissioned it that it could not be shown in full motion during the expose/documentary for which it was intended.

post-242-007176100 1283784855_thumb.jpg

post-242-076599100 1283784747_thumb.jpg

post-242-037984500 1283786040_thumb.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

In all honesty, I really don't think the back story matters all that much. Why? Yeah, I know that sounds nuts, but follow along.

Roger Patterson was not always the most "upstanding" citizen. Does that mean unbelievable things do not happen, unless you are of the most upstanding character? Nope.

Even if it is proven Roger Patterson was all the things said, we are still left with "what is that on that sandbar in Bluff Creek?" Roger can be the biggest scam artist on the face of the planet, but still no one has been able to definitively "prove" Patty is simply a man in a monkey suit. On the flip side, no one has been able to prove Patty is a bigfoot. Proving either of those questions, has little to do with the back story of the people surrounding the film.

I find too, the back story is only confusing many. I have read arguements over whether Patterson was thrown off his horse or fell, bending the stirrup.. In my mind, answering that question (or arguing about it) wont tell me what Patty is or is not.

Back stories can be useful, if all the players involved are still around - to be questioned. We do not have that with the Patterson film. Roger Patterson is gone, and all we have are his past statements, and stories about him. I have seen some people mis-represent comments made by Patterson and Gimlin, and regardless of what they have said in reference to the statements, these mis-representations are still floating out there as fact.

My money is on whomever comes up with a convincing suit - that is just as convincing as Patty. Can walk like Patty, and do it within the same dollar amount as Roger Patterson was 'said' to have paid. OR, the person who has said (and shown) they tried, but it can not be done.

You're right, it cannot be done because it was over 40 years ago. There is no way to go back to that time and since Patterson is dead we'll never know exactly how he modified the Morris suit to get the Patty look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

You're right, it cannot be done because it was over 40 years ago. There is no way to go back to that time and since Patterson is dead we'll never know exactly how he modified the Morris suit to get the Patty look.

Fuzzy....before you attribute Patty to anything connected to Phillip Morris do yourself the favor of researching some of the Morris gorilla suit offerings of 1967. A bit easier though is simply look at my post directly above yours and you 'll see what Phil Morris created in recent times. For my money the stretch to connect Morris to anything PGF is a bit too backbreaking. But Phil is a nice guy but he does have that impish trickster glint to his eyes. But I won't float my boat with Phil Morris creations. I don't like getting wet that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

There is no way to go back to that time and since Patterson is dead we'll never know exactly how he modified the Morris suit to get the Patty look.

Too conclusive of a statement on your end friend. Have you seen the available Morris suits at that time? If Patterson, or anyone else, modified one of the Morris suits to be what we witness in the PGF then they truly missed their calling in life.

But, to say that "since Patterson is dead we'll never know exactly how he modified the Morris suit to get the Patty look" is putting the cart well before the horse.

You've first got to prove he altered a Morris suit. Then, you've got to prove how he did so in such a manner that has withstood over 40 years of scrutiny. Easier said than done IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Fuzzy....before you attribute Patty to anything connected to Phillip Morris do yourself the favor of researching some of the Morris gorilla suit offerings of 1967. A bit easier though is simply look at my post directly above yours and you 'll see what Phil Morris created in recent times. For my money the stretch to connect Morris to anything PGF is a bit too backbreaking. But Phil is a nice guy but he does have that impish trickster glint to his eyes. But I won't float my boat with Phil Morris creations. I don't like getting wet that way.

If Morris didn't make the suit that Patterson modified then who did?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

See what I mean? The suit explanation falls further apart the more you scrutinize it. If Patty was a modified Morris suit then are we to assume that neither Phil, nor anyone else in 43 years ever had the inclination and the funds to show how it could be done? Having no reason to try and/or insufficient funds only explains part of why it can't be done, if you ask me (not that anybody did. haha!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest River

Too conclusive of a statement on your end friend. Have you seen the available Morris suits at that time? If Patterson, or anyone else, modified one of the Morris suits to be what we witness in the PGF then they truly missed their calling in life.

But, to say that "since Patterson is dead we'll never know exactly how he modified the Morris suit to get the Patty look" is putting the cart well before the horse.

You've first got to prove he altered a Morris suit. Then, you've got to prove how he did so in such a manner that has withstood over 40 years of scrutiny. Easier said than done IMHO.

Perhaps you should consider the flip side of that argument. First you need to prove there is such an animal despite no proof being presented in the history of man. (much less in the last 40 years) So perhaps proponents of the films authenticity should consider presenting a real animal if they would demand a similar suit. Until such an animal is proven to exist, with no evidence or back story at all, its still a man in a suit. (because we know men in suits exist, and we can prove they do)

So after 40 some years, why no more film of said "animal"? Youve got to prove such an animal even exists to be filmed. Easier said than done. IMHO

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Who says film hasn't been taken but was never shown after they saw how Roger Patterson has been ripped apart? Who says some films we have seen AREN'T real Sasquatch? We can't say that with any certainty. For the record I know for me I kept hearing demands that I provide a body to prove Sasquatch are real. So my return argument was, "Show me a suit." The "suit" used in the PGF is about as readily available as a body for Sasquatch. Hmmm...

So is it possible for uncatalogued animals to exist? Yes. If your mind is closed you'll never learn anything. We have to be open to the possibility. If your not, well, I guess your not. In any event nobody knows WHAT is on that film. No one ever will either. Unless THE suit is presented or a type specimen is found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

If Morris didn't make the suit that Patterson modified then who did?

What created the PGF "suit"? Genetics, DNA, egg, sperm, time = how what we see in the PGF was created.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...