Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

What Would It Take.....?

Recommended Posts

Guest Theagenes

All in all, I just don't know. And personally, it seems any scientific view would come to the same conclusion at this point with the evidence presented to date.

Emotionally, I want the film to be real. Objectively, there are attributes of the film that I think help substantiate the film to be genuine. Looking at just the film on its own and nothing else, I'd say I am 80% convinced it is real. The 20% is predicated on the diaper illusion I see, and hairy breasts.

The circumstantial evidence on the other hand...mostly leads me to believe the film could be an elaborate hoax. The timing issues with film development. The whole thing seeming too good to be true. I am not sure what Bob H has to gain, other than media attention. And I do see what Mrs. Patterson and Gimlin have to lose financially if the film is a hoax.

In just my humble opinion, and trying to put myself in Bob G's shoes, I would think I'd adamantly want to publicly expose Bob H if he's lying. On the surface, I cannot think of a valid enough reason to deter me from doing this. If I believe what I saw to be real, I'd be pi*@ed if someone was calling me a phony. And I'd expose them.

I just want the truth. Even if it isn't the truth I'm hoping it is. If it's real, without question it is the single most important piece of film in human history.

Well said Ken and plussed. Sounds like you're at pretty much the same place I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

I am not sure what Bob H has to gain, other than media attention.

Money as well. He first tried to sell his story to a newspaper for money. He was also on the lookout for somebody to write his biography. Karl Korff was going to do this but it all fell through for whatever reason. Bob H was expecting to cash in substantially for his "I was Patty" claim. I very much doubt if he didn't make a cent from all his various interviews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Theagenes

Money as well. He first tried to sell his story to a newspaper for money. He was also on the lookout for somebody to write his biography. Karl Korff was going to do this but it all fell through for whatever reason. Bob H was expecting to cash in substantially for his "I was Patty" claim. I very much doubt if he didn't make a cent from all his various interviews.

Don't forgot Roger still owes him his 1000 bucks. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I would have to see a suit that

1.Had arm extentions above the elbow

2.Exibited mouth , finger ,calf , thigh , boob and butt cheek movement

3.Had 14-1/2 inch feet that clearly match the trackway and my cast of the occasion.(with toe movement)

And, an extremely athletic man between the height of 6 1/2 and 7 feet tall with twice the girth of an ordinary person would have to come forward would have to come forward and explain why in 1967 he had nothing better to do with his considerable talents then surprize a couple of cowboys , why he wasn't concerned with getting shot by Gimlin and why he only did it once ..

What video have you watched? There is little to no movement in that suit, as you claim. Also, why would someone have to be "extremely" athletic? Haha, what to walk on a sandbar, yeah better get calvin johnson out there because he's the only person athletic enough to put one foot in front of the other. And finally, prove to me that thing(man in a suit) is 7 feet tall. And "twice the girth"?

johnstewart_facepalm.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Primate

If you can't see the afforementioned movement . You either haven't been paying attention, don't have the eye for it or are being willingly obtuse . So nothing I can do for you there ..The footwork involved in the lookback alone is extroadinary . Sweaty put a Gif together I suggest you look it up..Both Grover Krantz and a russian professor of biomechanics were deeply impressed by the movementf of the subject . But if you can do better film yourself walking in a suit and lets see how gracefull you are . Bill Munns models with the Bob H suit nearly passed out and that was walking on flat ground in an easy arc.

f you're not impressed by the girth of the subject , I suggest you check out Andre the Giants turn as the Sasquatch on the 6 Million Dollar Man . Patty makes him look like a milk fed puppy ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Evil Ken wrote:

Bob Gimlin could have exposed this "hoax"...(or at least threatened to)...after being cut-out of the profits from the Film, by Roger......yet he didn't.

Can you think of a valid reason to deter Bob from doing that?? :)

I wasn't aware of that. When did that happen? (being cut off)

And to answer your question...on the surface, I cannot. At face value, I see the point you make. Playing Devil's advocate, could it be possible there is some sort of under the table arrangement?? Maybe between BG and Mrs. Patterson? Or getting even stranger...that dynamic served as part of the hoax? (only thinking out loud and out of the box here).... Not saying I think these are practical or feasible...just throwing out possibilities.

Well said Ken and plussed. Sounds like you're at pretty much the same place I am.

Thanks :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

What video have you watched? There is little to no movement in that suit, as you claim. Also, why would someone have to be "extremely" athletic? Haha, what to walk on a sandbar, yeah better get calvin johnson out there because he's the only person athletic enough to put one foot in front of the other. And finally, prove to me that thing(man in a suit) is 7 feet tall. And "twice the girth"?

johnstewart_facepalm.gif

You're kidding, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

I wasn't aware of that. When did that happen? (being cut off)

It was when they toured the film. Gimlin didn't want to keep touring but expected to keep getting his cut. The others apparently disagreed and cut him off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Theagenes

I wasn't aware of that. When did that happen? (being cut off)

And to answer your question...on the surface, I cannot. At face value, I see the point you make. Playing Devil's advocate, could it be possible there is some sort of under the table arrangement?? Maybe between BG and Mrs. Patterson? Or getting even stranger...that dynamic served as part of the hoax? (only thinking out loud and out of the box here).... Not saying I think these are practical or feasible...just throwing out possibilities.

Al DeAtley and Patrica Patterson cut off Gimlin in 1975, so he sued them. It was settled out of court and none of the principals will discuss it today. That means a non-disclosure agreement was part of the package. Personally I feel that this should be investigated a bit further.

To put this back on topic, having the details and documents from this settlement released could conceivably put me into either category 1 or 2 depending on their content. If it's a hoax then all three of these individuals had to had have knowledge of it and I expect that it would be apparent in the language of the settlement even if it's not explicit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Look, I make it a point to try and stay away from the PGF forum simply because, I've found thru the years, that this is one thing believer's really need. If you think the look back is "extraordinary", some slanted gif(one of the million) sweaty put together, the opinion of two scientists(when countless others disagree), and patty makes andre the giant "look like a milk fed puppy" we just completely disagree. BTW what do you think are the height and weights of patty vs. andre the giant.

And no Austin I'm not kidding, but that was a very well thoughtout post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Andre was 7'4", 475lbs...This is the Billed weight (on the ring card), could be embelished for entertainment though...sounds about the same size as some of the claims I have heard over the years. No I do not think he was there. He did not come to the US until atleast after Japan in 1970

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

It was when they toured the film. Gimlin didn't want to keep touring but expected to keep getting his cut. The others apparently disagreed and cut him off.

Yes and Gimlin had a falling out with Patterson before he died. Gimlin wasn't getting any money so you'd think that was the perfect time for payback and to spill the beans if it was a hoax.......yet Gimlin did nothing. He still said it was all real.

If it was a hoax, why became a kamikaze and cut out the one man who can scream "It was a hoax!"??

this is one thing believer's really need.

Just as many skeptics and cynics have a need to believe it's a man in a suit and not a sasquatch.

The irony of this is lost on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Just as many skeptics and cynics have a need to believe it's a man in a suit and not a sasquatch.

The irony of this is lost on you.

*BZZZT*

People skeptical of the Patterson film assume it is a man in a suit, because european explorers and colonists have been on this continent for 400 years, and have acquired ZERO evidence for such a creature. There is no "need to believe" at play here. Just hard reality.

Keep trying.

Edited by Interdasting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Kerchak

See my signature.

Your emotional dam precludes you from having an open mind. It's a common problem amongst cynics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Such profound wisdom. Thank you. I "see" it now.

*gets hit the face with reality*

Wait! No, that's not the case at all. The only "dam" "precluding" anything is the massive dam of 400 years of no dam bigfoot evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...