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

Twist
1 hour ago, SWWASAS said:

I am sorry I am again a victim of logic.  Something this thread seems to lack at times.      How many times does "bloke in a suit" come up?    Some people claim others wore it but you said,   " I never said BobH was Patty. I'm using him as a human example."  Rule him out then.   Morris is mentioned but Bob H and Morris have no evidence they were at the film site other than decades later claims.   Claimed suit wearers have pretty much flunked fact checks about the film site.      We are instructed to ignore witness claims anyway.         Roger is accepted as the one behind the camera.     Most people even skeptics,   acknowledge  Bob Gimlin as present.      Bob is proclaimed by several to have to have been in on the hoax.     If Roger and Bob were the only ones there,   it had to have been Bob in the costume especially if the the film was hoaxed.   I think that is stronger than suggested often.       I read most of the thread and now have a headache.     I am out of here.      

 

It does appear you made an error SWW.  No big deal, no call for a hoax based banning.  Things happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton
7 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

   You submitted evidence not knowing what it's true origin was.    

 

He knew the image was from 1963, I had just told him 2 hrs after him bringin' it up friday, with the info behind the image. He posted his same pic two days later, plenty of time to check for himself. So he can't claim a mistake either.

 

An we're all familiar with the PGF images an info, does anyone of us at all recall these tracks bein' claimed as from the PGF ?  Does anyone ever recall someone sprinklin' a PGF track white ? Or a PGF track with tinsnips beside them for cryin' out loud ?    Or a PGF trackway image credited to Al Hodgson ? haha ! 

 

Joshua use to use these tracks often enough with his Wallace yada yada, he'd even put the info, surely I'm not the only one that recalls his rinse an repeat. haha !  

 

"Honest mistake or fabricating a claim? You be the judge." ;);) 

 

  

 

 

IMG_4232.JPG

Bighodgson2.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch

Pat to put it bluntly: I have your posts on ignore and rarely click on the blue (this response being an exception). It's

 Nothing personal I just choose not to read 'em for the most part. It'

 A grammatical thin' :)

 

Having said that I was unaware that the hodgson pic was from 63 (it does look like Wallace stompers though)

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

McSquatch: when you posted this:

bluffcreektinsnips.thumb.jpg.13298886fe0bdc0dad9e6fa9939f2f28.jpg

 

 

and then said:  "^^^ BTW Starling, there's your 'to scale comparison' right there. A large size pair of tin snips. Evidently there was a 'smaller' version of the tinsnips... But this is the documentation and that's how it all went down... :)"   I didn't get what you were even trying to say.  That image has nothing to do with the PGf trackway. 

 

It's very fortunate that we have people here who actually know what they are talking about.  Thanks again, Pat and others above!  I remember kit ranting on and on about the 1963 BCM tracks, R. Wallace, Chang masks, house-slipper feet, curtain rods for arms (just joking, but it wouldn't surprise me!  : ) and just about every thing else under the sea, trying to discredit the PGF.  In the end, none of the conspiracies amount to diddly squat and the costume parts look ridiculous in motion.  Epic fails, each and every one.  :thumbsup:    

 

thum_776647e93ee1c6d98.gif

Edited by xspider1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Starling

It must be tempting for Gimlin, though. To get it off his chest and play up the sheer scale of success his 'ol scoundrel of a pal had pulled off with his little scheme. Regardless of what anyone might think of Roger, his Bigfoot movie turned out to be the Star Wars phenomenon of the hoax world.

 

I imagine the only things preventing Bob from speaking up and riding a last wave of press attention are a residual deference to Roger's wife and a (perhaps justified) fear of what an angry Bigfoot mob might look like. 

20 minutes ago, xspider1 said:

McSquatch: when you posted this:

bluffcreektinsnips.thumb.jpg.13298886fe0bdc0dad9e6fa9939f2f28.jpg

 

 

and then said:  "^^^ BTW Starling, there's your 'to scale comparison' right there. A large size pair of tin snips. Evidently there was a 'smaller' version of the tinsnips... But this is the documentation and that's how it all went down... :)"   I didn't get what you were even trying to say.  That image has nothing to do with the PGf trackway. 

 

It's very fortunate that we have people here who actually know what they are talking about.  Thanks again, Pat and others above!  I remember kit ranting on and on about the 1963 BCM tracks, R. Wallace, Chang masks, house-slipper feet, curtain rods for arms (just joking, but it wouldn't surprise me!  : ) and just about every thing else under the sea, trying to discredit the PGF.  In the end, none of the conspiracies amount to diddly squat and the costume parts look ridiculous in motion.  Epic fails, each and every one.  :thumbsup:    

 

thum_776647e93ee1c6d98.gif

 

Unfortunately for your predictably pompous "It's very fortunate that we have people here who actually know what they are talking about" there are people here who can see the suit for what is, regardless of what credules 'think' they can see in it...ranting on and on about 'musculature, hernias, mid tarsal breaks, 'I'm an actual Bigfoot' authenticity certificates' (just joking but it wouldn't surprise me :) and just about anything else trying to make the pgf real.

 

Epic fails!!

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton
1 hour ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

Pat to put it bluntly: I have your posts on ignore and rarely click on the blue (this response being an exception). It's

 Nothing personal I just choose not to read 'em for the most part. It'

 A grammatical thin' :)

 

Having said that I was unaware that the hodgson pic was from 63 (it does look like Wallace stompers though)

 

Does anybody know what Squatchy McSquatch means by clickin' on the blue ?

Thanks !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
1 hour ago, PBeaton said:

 

Does anybody know what Squatchy McSquatch means by clickin' on the blue ?

Thanks !

 

Yeah, Pat....I think Squatchy is refering to the blue bar that appears in-pace of an 'Ignored' member's post.....(as seen in this screen capture, I just made)...

 

Ignore_Screen_Capture2.jpg

 

 

When you have someone on 'Ignore'....you'll see when they have posted, via that blue bar...and you can 'click' on it....to reveal a list of 'Options'. One of those options is to view just that particular post of their's.  :)  

 

 

Edited to add:  For some strange/creepy reason, I get a comment added to my 'blue bars'.  I happen to agree with it...but it creeps me out, nonetheless. :beach: 

 

 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
4 minutes ago, PBeaton said:

Huh ! Thanks Bud ! :drinks:

 

 

You're welcome, good buddy!  :drinks: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Btw, Pat....and to anyone else who cares.......as is evidenced by this post of Squatchy's...

 

Quote

Pat to put it bluntly: I have your posts on ignore and rarely click on the blue (this response being an exception). It's

 Nothing personal I just choose not to read 'em for the most part. It'

 A grammatical thin' :)

 

 

....Squatchy is apparently acting as a conduit, for kitakaze to continue posting on the BFF. kit used to take issue with your abbreviations of words...and now, Squatchy is. I don't recall Squatchy ever making such an objection, in the past. 

 

kit also had a regular habit of posting bogus information...and Squatchy just did exactly that, with the image of the 1963 Bluff Creek footprint. 

 

Whether it is by Joshua's request, or not....Squatchy is acting as a 'stand in' for Joshua.....and his garbage.  

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PBeaton
3 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

Pat to put it bluntly: I have your posts on ignore and rarely click on the blue (this response being an exception). It's

 Nothing personal I just choose not to read 'em for the most part. It'

 A grammatical thin' :)

 

Having said that I was unaware that the hodgson pic was from 63 (it does look like Wallace stompers though)

 

Huh ! 

 

On ‎2018‎-‎02‎-‎25 at 6:46 PM, Squatchy McSquatch said:

'Footers also have a pic of Dadhinden's pipe on the ground, for scale  :)

 

Funny, in order for you to notice the pipe for scale, you would have had  have viewed that post of mine as well. Huh...must have been another exception ! ;);) 

Honest...or fabricated...you be the judge folks.

 

13 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

^^^ Sure go ahead. 

report me for hoaxing.

First you'll have to prove that I was aware that the pic was from '63, which I was not.

Have fun with that :) Knock yourself out :)

 

OK...let's see...May 17, 2017, Wallace Stompers On Blue Mountain Road thread, hope over to pg. 65, nother example of Joshua talkin' bout those tracks from 1963 again, the conversation went on for a few days of which he participated. 

 

On ‎2017‎-‎05‎-‎17 at 11:46 AM, OkieFoot said:

Is there another set of tracks besides the BCM trackway that some have claimed were hoaxed with Wallace stompers?

 

"1963 Bluff Creek trackway documented by Al Hodgson.

 

Note the decidedly meager stride and abrupt 45 degree turn to the left when coming upon substrate which won't clearly show the prints..."

 

 Bighodgson2.jpg

 

"Al Hodgson sprinkled the tracks white for better definition..."

 

Bigyear1.jpg

 

"The left foot above compared with the left foot doubleballer from BCM four years later..."

Bighodgsonwallace.jpg

 

Squatchy McSquatch was apart of that conversation, postin' one of the images Joshua showed from 1963, an commentin' on it specifically.

 

Here's what he posted.  

aratherabruptturn.jpg

 

"Look at the middle print R then look at the bottom lower print L.

 

The 'creature' did an abrupt sidestep from right to left foot, at a 90 degree angle, with absolutely no variation or displacement in the right (push-off) track."

 

Claimin' he rarely clicks on my posts, when he just clearly he just did in order to notice the pipe beside the track, an well...above we have him in a conversation regardin' the 1963 tracks, that have been used before(as I posted earlier showin the 1963 date as well).

 

Honest mistake or fabricating a claim? You be the judge. " ;)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

How come proponents only want to pile on the Squatchy subject and beat a dead horse about his mistake?  

 

I presented a question that so far only one poster was willing to directly address.   I thank you for that Backdoc.  

 

Are the others not reallly here to discuss Patty and the players involved? Are they not even willing to imagine a scenario in which Gimlin admits it’s a hoax?   I understand in believing him, but is just talking about an opposing viewpoint to much?

 

Again,  for the proponents, if Gimlin came out and admitted it was a hoax all along, and was clear minded when saying it.  What would your stance be?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot

Twist, (I think bd touched on this earlier). In a scenario of Bob Gimlin saying the whole thing was a hoax, my thinking is Bob G. would need to provide details that would be corroborated by the evidence. He should be able to fill in missing details; such as name the man in the suit, and lay out how everything unfolded, among other things. Plus, an explanation as to why he would lie for 50 yrs. and then tell the truth when he could have made good money a long time ago by exposing the hoax in an exclusive interview. Surely someone would have paid for an exclusive. 

 

To look at it a little humorously, (humourously for our Canadian posters). After 50 years of lying when saying the PGF was real, if Bob G. then suddenly started saying it was all a hoax, he would probably have trouble convincing people that his suddenly stating it was all a hoax isn't a lie. Seems ironic. ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...