Jump to content
xspider1

The realism of the Patterson-Gimlin Film subject cannot be replicated with a costume so; what are the possibilities?

Recommended Posts

xspider1

Since no Bigfoot costume has ever approached the realism of the PGf subject, what does that tell us? 

That no one has ever tried in earnest to make a convincing Bigfoot costume?   (No)

 

That somebody(ies) pulled a prank in 1967 that defies replication?  (Impossible)

 

That Roger got the best known footage to date of a real animal that has been described a million times before?  (Very likely, imo.)

What else is there?

 

leg-Depositphotos_18535827_calves-treadmill-001-1500.jpg

Edited by xspider1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

 

You HAD to ask, didn't you ... :(

 

I-am-not-saying.jpg

 

... as long as it's not bigfoot the scoftics should be happy.

 

MIB

 

Edited by MIB
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Good answer!  8 ).   Aliens are a distinct possibility for just about everything imo, so I'm glad you mentioned that.  I said it before here, but some may not know that the first report of a UFO from a commercial airline pilot originated in a plane that ended up landing in Yakima, WA!  That's a true story (I think)  :huh:  

Edited by xspider1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
8 hours ago, xspider1 said:

Since no Bigfoot costume has ever approached the realism of the PGf subject, what does that tell us? 

That no one has ever tried in earnest to make a convincing Bigfoot costume?   (No)

 

That somebody(ies) pulled a prank in 1967 that defies replication?  (Impossible)

 

That Roger got the best known footage to date of a real animal that has been described a million times before?  (Very likely, imo.)

What else is there?

 

leg-Depositphotos_18535827_calves-treadmill-001-1500.jpg

 

To me, that speaks volumes. I know I've said it before but the idea that a guy like Roger P., with a limited budget, pulled off a hoax that Disney and Universal said they didn't think they could replicate and certainly not without spending huge amounts of money (possibly $1M according to Disney).  This idea doesn't even approach passing the the logic test.

 

A question I've often thought to myself is; if it's a hoax then why does all the analysis of the subject point to a real creature and not a human in a suit.? Joint location, IM index, head positioning, bulk, gait, footprint depth, apparent weight; none of these says it was a human.

As far as "What are the possibilities"; I got nothing. ;)

When there are no logical alternatives, what is left?  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Well said, OkieFoot.  In-depth analysis of the PGf subject does indeed favor it being a real animal far and above any possibility of it being a suit.  PGf detractors are forced to question such things as "the impossible film-development timeline", Roger's finances and the word of those who actually witnessed the event and those who were there soon after.  If it were a costume then it would be the only costume ever to exhibit a level of realism that defies replication.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter

Certainly none of the scofftic explanations to try and explain away the evidence has ever seemed very well thought out in my view. Hand dug tracks near a road that anyone could drive on with hopes of not being seen - seems rather far-fetched. Tracks that traveled over the gravel as well pressing the various sized pieces into the loamy sand while still leaving the foot impressions seems rather tedious, time consuming, and risky for the same reasons previously mentioned.

 

Then there is a mention of a budget Roger had to work with - to that I must ask "What Budget?" Looks to me as though Roger had no money. He didn't even keep his camera rental payments up. The unexpected trip to California sounds as though Roger's part was paid for by money he was promising 'on the come'. If DeAtley was funding Roger's trip to California, then where was it? Gimlin bank-rolled that trip and had never seen a dime of repayment for the expenses. I must question if DeAtley even knew about the California trip until Roger contacted him about the film.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
2 hours ago, xspider1 said:

Well said, OkieFoot.  In-depth analysis of the PGf subject does indeed favor it being a real animal far and above any possibility of it being a suit.  PGf detractors are forced to question such things as "the impossible film-development timeline", Roger's finances and the word of those who actually witnessed the event and those who were there soon after.  If it were a costume then it would be the only costume ever to exhibit a level of realism that defies replication.

 

I feel the reason some people would like to prove the film development timeline to be "impossible" is because they cannot prove the film is fake, so they try to do it through the timeline. However, how could the timeline say "hoax" when all the analysis says "real creature and not a human? We would have to believe an unsophisticated guy like Roger P., without much money and who had to rent a camera, pulled off the hoax of the century that has never been replicated in nearly 50 yrs. This doesn't add up.

  

Here's another question I've thought about: If someone thinks Patty's joint locations line up with humans, how come Patty's IM index is not in human range? If her joints lined up with humans, it seems to me  she would have human body proportions, so her ratio should be within or close to human ratios.  

But Patty's IM index is out of the ballpark compared to human averages.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
41 minutes ago, OkieFoot said:

 Here's another question I've thought about: If someone thinks Patty's joint locations line up with humans, how come Patty's IM index is not in human range?

 

Answer:  Shoddy photo comparisons. Varying lines of sight - different camera lens sizes - etc., without proper considerations and/or adjustments make for inaccurate claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

If the film subject cannot be made human, there is no argument, about any aspect of a counterfeit, that holds water.  Period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

Good thread and great question. The film is great and appears to depict a real animal. However, with a grainy film filled with anomalies. One can see many things. I had  heard many explanations from both sides of the fence.  I must now admit the proponents

explanations are much more believable than the arguments against.  Therefore it gives me hope. The other evidence for the creatures existence does not.

 

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Teegunn

Excellent thread.  There are a good many things about the creature on the film that just do not fit a dude in a suit being a possibility.  Complicated contrived contingencies not actually dealing with what we see on the film are a distraction to the actual video evidence of the film itself.  That film is very hard to explain as being somehow a dude in a suit, in fact I can't think of a single thing about the film that really stands up to it being a dude in a suit.  This video is the main piece of evidence that continues to make me think that there at least was a sasquatch creature in 1967 that was filmed that day, even if that species is not alive today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Thanks, guys.  Since no suit compares, there must be a different and verifiable explanation out there somewhere.  I agree that the other evidence of Bigfoot (although there is a plethora of it) falls short in terms being intrinsic, P-G.  It's a maddening aspect of this mystery that so many people report seeing them and yet more evidence on par with the PGf has, so far, eluded the mainstream.    :  |

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

Maddening I might agree (unless one has made a good study of it and drawn the proper conclusion...that we have an unlisted animal here).  But totally explainable, given the kneejerk rejection that characterizes the nay side of the debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

^ Wouldn't you think that the Bigfoot naysayers should have been silenced with proof by now if we were dealing with large land animals in the traditional sense?  The point of this thread (i think : ) is to explore the possibilities for an explanation to this mystery.  The PGf subject has not, cannot and evidently will never be explained with a costume.  At the same time, we do not have any other explanation for which there is wide-spread acceptance.  I would not pretend to expect a deadline for proof of Bigfoot; it would just be good to understand the possibilities so that we might know what is most likely the deal with these things.  thx 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

I can't think of an alternative that fits.   It takes at least two.  

 

Taking off my "knower" hat for a moment and just looking at the data, I still can't account for it any other way than bigfoot being real.   There are SO many reports, as I've said, my best guess based on the data I have accessible to me and scaling for the sites I don't have access to, we're looking at somewhere between 125,000 and 140,000 filed reports and an unknown number of events that could have been, but were not, reported that is probably 2-5 times that ... or more ... based on what we know about patterns of other kinds of reports.    That data shows a few hoaxes via outlier data points.   Remove the obvious hoaxes and you're still way over 100,000 reports over 4 centuries, from people who did not all have access to other reports, and yet they are neither cookie cutter identical reports nor bug-eyed monster imagination reports, instead, they follow the trends to be expected of a real, biological entity. 

 

I can't find any explanation that isn't just laughable other than no matter how improbable it seems, bigfoot is real.  

 

I've considered some pretty weird stuff like the idea we, all humans, share some kind of propensity to delusion in our DNA.   However, that does not account for audio recordings we can play back nor the track casts we have many of.  

 

If there's another explanation that isn't just outright insultingly stupid, I haven't heard it yet.

 

MIB

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×