Jump to content

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


xspider1
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Bigfoothunter
10 minutes ago, AaronD said:

Did they even have stretch fur back then? We're building a suit for our film and let me tell you--it's like $67 a square foot! Not for a middle to low class hoaxer thats for sure. And no I'm not rich by any means but we were fortunate enough to have some great sponsors.

 

 

I have read and heard from from special effects people in the industry that stretch fabric for gorilla suits did not come along until the mid-1980s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt the film is most likely beyond 1967 suit technology . However ,I must maintain without a true specimen . The creature remains undocumented and nothing more than myth and folklore . 

 

Some are quick to point out the film has not been replicated in nearly 50 years . 

Then the counter argument is of course no specimen has been collected either . 

The mystery remains unsolved . 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter
10 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

No doubt the film is most likely beyond 1967 suit technology . However ,I must maintain without a true specimen . The creature remains undocumented and nothing more than myth and folklore .

 

I disagree. While without a body so to classify the creature ... it stepped out of folklore and myth the day it was filmed with characteristics that could not be rationally attributed to it being human. The evidence left behind at the site where it was filmed added evidence in favor of the creatures existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

No doubt the film is most likely beyond 1967 suit technology . However ,I must maintain without a true specimen . The creature remains undocumented and nothing more than myth and folklore . 

 

Some are quick to point out the film has not been replicated in nearly 50 years . 

Then the counter argument is of course no specimen has been collected either . 

The mystery remains unsolved . 

 

I like the spirit of this post. I would add a bit to it for the discussion:

 

To me the 2 things are separate.  If Patty is a hoax, then clearly it is a man in a suit.  We are then left with one challenge:

 

Person A makes a suit.  Person B should be able to reproduce the suit in a near same or similar manner. 

 

It is that simple but the only thing making it seem complicated is the focus of the subject matter itself.  If I filmed Santa Clause running across my back yard, another person could easily do the same with near perfect duplication.  The fact the PGF suggests a animal not yet known to us is what makes the challenge emotionally.

 

The counter argument to the PGF is not the failure of capturing one in real life.  The counter argument to a man made suit is duplication of another man made suit. 

 

I agree we need a body.  I also agree the PGF has not really been duplicated. 

If Patty exists, then finding another would be just applying the resources and numbers and time to create the luck to finding another.  That is, our lack of finding something real is just conformation it hasn't been found yet. Nothing more is suggested.  If we have suggested demonstrative evidence on film suggesting 1) a creature or 2) a man in a suit, then it should be EASY to replicate a suit in a similar manner using materials from 50 years ago when man had not even landed on the moon yet.

 

The Titanic was not found until the 1980's but it was always there to be found.

 

BD

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like your post. Most of it. The Titanic is not a good analogy. Remember the Creatures are everywhere and there was only one  Titanic. :)

Edited by Patterson-Gimlin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter
1 hour ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

I like your post. Most of it. The Titanic is not a good analogy. Remember the Creatures are everywhere ...............

 

The creatures are not everywhere. There are those in this field that want people to believe these creatures are everywhere and that they somehow have a special connection to them so they can sense their presence, as well as communicate with them. However, those types cannot realistically be applied to the Sasquatch being everywhere - with the exception of being in their minds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bigfoothunter said:

 

The creatures are not everywhere. There are those in this field that want people to believe these creatures are everywhere and that they somehow have a special connection to them so they can sense their presence, as well as communicate with them. However, those types cannot realistically be applied to the Sasquatch being everywhere - with the exception of being in their minds.

I was not being serious. They are obviously not everywhere  or they would have been documented. On a slab ,in a science lab  etc. If they did exist, more likely to be in the dark forests near water with an abundance of food to sustain them.  Driven there by progress and civilization. Surviving by avoidance.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

I was not being serious. They are obviously not everywhere  or they would have been documented. On a slab ,in a science lab  etc. If they did exist, more likely to be in the dark forests near water with an abundance of food to sustain them.  Driven there by progress and civilization. Surviving by avoidance.

Yet some claim special, insider knowledge and sneer when anyone questions such. Go figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On October 29, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Patterson-Gimlin said:

I like your post. Most of it. The Titanic is not a good analogy. Remember the Creatures are everywhere and there was only one  Titanic. :)

 

 

Maybe Patty was real and the last one or one of the last ones.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator
On 10/28/2016 at 8:23 PM, Patterson-Gimlin said:

No doubt the film is most likely beyond 1967 suit technology . However ,I must maintain without a true specimen . The creature remains undocumented and nothing more than myth and folklore . 

 

Some are quick to point out the film has not been replicated in nearly 50 years . 

Then the counter argument is of course no specimen has been collected either . 

The mystery remains unsolved . 

 

Its only a mystery if you don't analyze the film. If you analyze it, its instantly obvious that its not a person in a suit. No-one would subject themselves to the surgery required to get all the joints in the right places!

 

If a body on a slab is required to be 'documented' then its undocumented. If incontrovertible evidence is sufficient for documentation, then we've already go that ('incontrovertable' in this case means that on-one has been able to explain how a person could have been in a suit and made that film).

 

If the creature is both rare and smart, its not all that weird that its not been found. I saw two grizzlies pretty close on a trip recently but no photos- they were out of sight well before I had a camera. Grizzlies don't make any particular effort to stay hidden, but if a species did it might take a while to find. It took a long time to find gorillas. We've only known about them for 100 years or so.

 

 

On 10/29/2016 at 4:40 PM, Patterson-Gimlin said:

I was not being serious. They are obviously not everywhere  or they would have been documented. On a slab ,in a science lab  etc. If they did exist, more likely to be in the dark forests near water with an abundance of food to sustain them.  Driven there by progress and civilization. Surviving by avoidance.

 

^^ This.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bigfoothunter
3 hours ago, salubrious said:

 

Its only a mystery if you don't analyze the film. If you analyze it, its instantly obvious that its not a person in a suit. No-one would subject themselves to the surgery required to get all the joints in the right places!

 

Exactly right!  A review of the discussions on the PGF here show a long history of people claiming the film is a hoax, but not caring to explain away the evidence for its existence. One critic said his gut told him when he first saw the PGF that Patty was a hoax. Well there you go!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The PGF has an awful lot of things about it we can't explain away as a dude in a suit, or replicate with a dude in a suit today, let alone in 1967.  Just looking at the film itself and all we know about it and all that has been researched of the subject in the film, it's body proportions compared to a human, and many other details that just don't add up very well to a dude in a suit, especially back in 1967 - one can see why many think the creature in the PGF was most likely a real animal.  That has nothing to do with whether a BF body has been found, honestly.  If one had been found, that information become public and documented, then that would only enhance (or basically all but guarantee) the validity of the PGF being a BF.  But we don't, and all we need research is the possibility and why or why not Patty is a dude in a suit.  IMHO, most of what we have discovered points far more strongly to it NOT being a dude in a suit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator

^^

"IMHO, most of what we have discovered points more strongly to it NOT being a dude in a suit."

 

I would bet my last nickle any new analysis we might see in the future will point in the same direction as past analyses; that the figure is not a human in a suit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ I agree.  I have never seen any convincing PG film analysis indicating a hoax.  When I first saw the PG film I was instantly struck by the movement of the subject and the look-back.  I remember thinking: 'welp.. that's creepy' and that I've seen other animals do the same thing: a single look-back towards the end of their exit from a premises.  That and the discovery of 0 Bigfoot suits ever to compare it with are among the many things which quietly scream real to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • masterbarber pinned this topic
  • masterbarber unpinned this topic
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
  • gigantor locked this topic
  • gigantor locked and pinned this topic
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...