Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

kitakaze

I'm quite happy with my involvement in the film and the things I've been able to accomplish. I've been able to find the most important answer - what is on the film? It's not a question mark or an ambiguity or a maybe. I've been able to answer the question by going to the source of the film and finding out who was behind it. And there are still great questions to investigate, such as the exact details of the creation of the suit. It's a great subject of inquiry.

 

Try telling salubrious he didn't see two ginormous-foots. Same thing. Supreme irony. I'm quite comfortable with it.

 

The best part is it never takes a single second of time for other things. Yesterday I sat in the sun in beautiful Odori Park with dear friends here in Sapporo talking about everything and nothing. Today I'll try a new burger spot. XS and the all caps howlers won't be there in mind or spirit. When the laptop closes, the fundamentalists go away. Not a single second in word or thought about anything to do with Bigfoot. That's my weird closet hobby. 

 

We're all plumb crazy thinking about Bigfoot for more than a minute a year. I'm utterly content with it. I'm in a broom closet with about six grown men who will never ever change their adult fantasy role-play lifestyle and the best part is - I don't want them to. I don't want you or DWA or SweatyYeti or Bigfoothunter to change. Why would I want that? The hilarity that you guys bring to the table each day is my chocolate, my guilty pleasure. It's like a Mexican soap opera. What you guys do and how you react when faced with Gimlin's lies, Patterson's lies, DeAtley's lies, the farce that is the provenance of the film and the mental gymnastics you people do ti remain in Woods & Wildmen is pure awesome.

 

The show only gets better with age. You should check out the ISF. Roger Knights has gone full tilt Beckjord and decided in the face of the embarrassment that is the PGF provenance that Patty is a tulpa. You go google that. I'll wait. 

Edited by kitakaze
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1
13 minutes ago, kitakaze said:

When the laptop closes, the fundamentalists go away. Not a single second in word or thought about anything to do with Bigfoot.

 

Sorry but, I don't believe that for 1 second.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

That's fine and expectable of someone of your belief system. If you think I take thoughts of Bigfoot follies and Woods & Wildmen when I close the laptop and leave home, I would hazard a guess at projecting your own reality on others. If you could experience the beauty that is Sapporo, the last thing you'd think about when you close the laptop and walk out the door are the all caps howlers frothing about their Tom Cruise on a couch beliefs. Bigfoot fundamentalists are like Pokemon to me. An embarrassing guilty pleasure that you engage in do that you never admit to people. Pick it up, put it down, at your leisure.

 

The moment I find myself thinking about any member of the BFF or their posts when I am not on the forum is the moment is the moment is stop participating in the Woods & Wildmen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

Kitakaze, nice words . Very eloquently expressed. Of course most of what you said is true.

Anyway, you have no more proof of the film being faked   or anyone else to date.

I concede you assumption is  correct. Certainly, there are no man apes in the modern world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

Sorry, but I disagree with you. I don't have a certainty that there are no relict hominid species in the world. Homo floresiensis is a great example of one such species surviving nearly historical times.  I'm about at the least 99% certain there is no such thing as Bigfoot in North America.

 

I don't have proof the film is a hoax. I have confirmation it is a hoax for myself. I obtained that by near stalker level activity. I am the great flailing example of irony in eyewitness testimony. No one should believe any claim I make without reliable evidence. All caps howlers will change this to I'm telling you I am deceptive. Their fundamentalist mindset relies on this black hat manner of thinking. If they try to do else wise, it's like a certain unpleasant scene from Scanners. Kersplat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

When I say modern world. I am speaking of now. Not relict hominids. I am well aware of their existence in historical times.

Actually, you did agree with me kind of.  I worded it differently. I am 99  % sure there are no Bigfoot living anywhere.

 

Thank you for clarifying that you do not have proof the film is faked . I was under the impression from I have read that you thought you did. Again, certainly that is the only logical conclusion based on the fact that the creature most likely does not exist.

 

That does take away that the film is a wonderful film for a grainy 1967 supposed creature film.

Edited by Patterson-Gimlin
Link to post
Share on other sites
kitakaze

I love the PGF and the accomplishment of Patterson, Gimlin, Heironimus and DeAtley. I think they made a wonderful piece of Americana. Referring to now, too, I can not claim certainty that there are no hidden species of hominids uncatalogued in the world. Again, my money would be on homo floresiensis because we have the bones to prove it. Pan-continental Bigfoot is an insult to human achievement. Like we are such dolts and so scared of maverick soaring fortean thinkers that we could not, oops, catalogue one of the largest mammals on the continent of North America. Take that garbage and just stop. No, really, just stop. It is literally offensive to the people who bust their backs working smack in the middle of Bigfootland documenting for conservation purposes the species that are there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
On 8/5/2016 at 11:06 PM, kitakaze said:

I'm quite happy with my involvement in the film and the things I've been able to accomplish. I've been able to find the most important answer - what is on the film? It's not a question mark or an ambiguity or a maybe. I've been able to answer the question by going to the source of the film and finding out who was behind it. 

 

 

You just haven't been able to find out who was in it... :lol:  It wasn't Bobby.

 

You have actually helped in determining that....via your interview of Bob, in which he claimed he wore his regular pants inside the "suit pants".  One thing we can all agree on, kit....is that the filmed subject was clearly not wearing two pairs of pants.

 

Anyone who thinks the filmed subject was....is an absolute idiot. I challenge anyone who thinks that you can create the realism of Patty's legs by putting on a couple of pairs of pants......to replicate it, by doing exactly that. 

 

Also...regarding your "accomplishments", by "going to the source".....neither have you been able to find out who made the suit....which the 'Unknown Actor' "wore". ;)

 

Good work, Champ! :haha:

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
7 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

 

Thanks Sweaty. I wasn't on the forum back then so I hadn't read the post. When there are details in the casts that are similar to what is seen in Patty's feet, it's a very logical conclusion that the prints were made by the figure in the film.

 

You're welcome, Okie. :)

 

That mid-foot ridge in the left footprint cast...along with the lack of it in the right footprint casts....simply goes against the odds of it all occurring by 'random chance'.

 

Therefore, the 'probability' of the footprints being created by the filmed subject is significantly greater than 50%. :thumbsup:

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
On 8/5/2016 at 10:37 PM, kitakaze said:

You've already been given two links to the first and second parts of my second interview with Bob Heironimus. I was quite clear what I thought was extremely important new information. If you don't agree with the level of significance, that is fine, but no amount of terrier on leg is going to change the importance it had to me at the time when I posted that interview, nor was there anything from my second interview with Bob that I didn't post about.

 

 

Really??

 

That's not what you claimed, here...in 2014:

 

Quote

You think that when I spoke of a bombshell from Heironimus, it is a false claim because I never discussed it at the JREF and also because you think it has been conclusively shown that Bob could not be Patty. There were a number of things I considered to be bombshells from my interviews with Heironimus such as the fact he had spoken with Gimlin only two weeks prior to our first interview and that they were still friendly to each other. The most important thing I learned in my interviews with Bob was something I never have and never will discuss in public unless I am able to return to work on my documentary project and finish it. Until then I will never discuss it as it would compromise my own investigation efforts. 

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/7280-pattys-mouth-moves/&page=87#comment-866484

 

Nice contradiction. :)

 

So, kit...was there an important detail, from your 2nd interview of Bob H....that you did not post about, in your posts of JREF?? :popcorn:

 

 

Also....just a couple of days ago, in response to this question of mine...

 

Quote

What specifically was the "Major Bombshell", kit?? 

 

 

...you wrote this....giving the impression that the "Major Bombshell" was one of these details...

 

Quote

I personally was quite shocked that Heironimus not only was still in contact with Gimlin but that they were still friendly after Heironimus had come forward. I also thought it was extremely important information that Heironimus stated for the first time on the record that he had worn shoulder pads in the suit and that the only padding was in the head, shoulders and buttocks with no inner muscle suit. Also for the first time it was revealed that he was not saying the entire suit was made of horsehide, but rather the just the face.

Quote

 

 

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/54209-the-realism-of-the-patterson-gimlin-film-subject-cannot-be-replicated-with-a-costume-so-what-are-the-possibilities/&page=6

 

The "Major Bombshell" from Bob H....(which I asked you for)....could not have been one of those details...since back in 2014, you claimed that "the most important detail" you received was one that you have never revealed on the Forum. 

 

Therefore, the impression you tried to create, in your recent response....was a FALSE impression.  

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
10 hours ago, kitakaze said:

 

Try to arrive at the point where you understand when a person speaks of a Russian scientist coming to an unspecified conclusion that a PGF foot made a PGF cast without supporting evidence, it is cogent to call attention to the fact that another scientist, Meldrum, makes the argument that Patty's casts match the hoaxed event using stompers created by Wallace who was in collaboration with the editor of the Times-Standard and visited by DeAtley and Patterson.

 

What Russian Scientist are you speaking of?

 

The hoaxed event is a tale that you push. The more that the evidence is scrutinized - the more it doesn't do what you have claimed. The Wallace nonsense has fallen under its own weight. You post like Heironimus talks. You once said there was no photos showing what Green had said about the tracks going deep into the ground while the men were walking atop of it. You said if such proof existed in the way of a photo, then it would support the point Green had made. You were shown such images and merely scoffed at them. But like you have said - we should not believe anything you say. And we don't! You cannot make excuses for the carving making the deep prints when men can only walk atop of the ground around them. All you offer is more of what Heironimus gave us which has and will continue to be shown as one fabrication after another.

Edited by Bigfoothunter
spelling edit
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
6 hours ago, kitakaze said:

I don't have proof the film is a hoax. I have confirmation it is a hoax for myself.

 

Yes - your technique used seems to be the same one that allows Heironimus to see sand being as white as snow by looking at it through a dark mask over his face for less than 60 seconds while ignoring that Bob H saw that bluish gray colored sand for a whole day without a dark mask over his face.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch
12 hours ago, xspider1 said:

^ Can you not see that the bend in that costume covered foot is forward from where a mid-tarsal break would be?  Of course you can't.

 

 

Too funny, SMc.  Almost all public forums (such as the BFF) and public blogs as well require some sort of minimal registration prior to posting.  That cuts back on the trolling, the nasty stuff, spam, etc. (although it obviously does not eliminate those things :  |.   A private forum is one in which most people would not be allowed to post no matter what.  There are obvious differences between those two types of platforms.

 

Please give an example of a private forum in which most people would not be allowed to post no matter what.

 

How many people is 'most people'?

 

Nevermind the ability to post -- one cannot even view threads in this section without being registered. 

 

Nope. 

 

 

notpublicatall.JPG

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bigfoothunter
2 hours ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

Really??

 

That's not what you claimed, here...in 2014:

 

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/7280-pattys-mouth-moves/&page=87#comment-866484

 

Nice contradiction. :)

 

So, kit...was there an important detail, from your 2nd interview of Bob H....that you did not post about, in your posts of JREF?? :popcorn:

 

 

Also....just a couple of days ago, in response to this question of mine...

 

 

 

...you wrote this....giving the impression that the "Major Bombshell" was one of these details...

 

 

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/54209-the-realism-of-the-patterson-gimlin-film-subject-cannot-be-replicated-with-a-costume-so-what-are-the-possibilities/&page=6

 

The "Major Bombshell" from Bob H....(which I asked you for)....could not have been one of those details...since back in 2014, you claimed that "the most important detail" you received was one that you have never revealed on the Forum. 

 

Therefore, the impression you tried to create, in your recent response....was a FALSE impression.  

 

 

 

I am thinking that Kitakaze has discovered some of the lies Bob H has told that he previously believed were true and that is what he won't post on  the BFF.

2 minutes ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

 

Please give an example of a private forum in which most people would not be allowed to post no matter what.

 

How many people is 'most people'?

 

 

I thought you were BIG on staying on topic. Maybe take that to a thread of its own.

8 hours ago, xspider1 said:

 

Sorry but, I don't believe that for 1 second.

 

Kitakaze has said not to believe anything he says.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • salubrious locked this topic
  • 2 weeks later...
salubrious
Moderator

Alright- I've gone through and remove most of the personal attacks and trolling that went on before I locked this topic.

 

If you could all take a look at this link:

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/29306-bff-rules-guidelines/

 

You will find that it contains this text:

 

You are welcome to engage in challenging and spirited debate with other users, but rudeness will not be tolerated. Name-calling, disrespecting other users or throwing personal insults against them will not be tolerated. Flaming another user because of their spelling or word choice will not be tolerated. Personal attacks of any kind are not allowed. Racial/Ethnic or sexist slurs will not be tolerated. Antisocial behavior, in general, will not be tolerated.

 

and

 

B. Trolling (purposely posting messages designed to alarm, antagonize, or provoke other users) will not be tolerated. The staff -- not the users -- will determine if someone is trolling. The Staff encourages members to report posts that may be considered trolling.

 

You all had to check a box stating that you read, understood and agreed to abide by these rules. We really don't want the BFF to descend into a bunch of name calling and the like; to that end it is considered a personal attack when one member seeks to state what is inside another member's head.

 

This thread got locked because one post was fairly inflammatory, but rather than report the post members chose to react to it. The result was 4 pages that had to be waded through once the initial post was edited to remove the personal attacks. I'm taking the time here to state this because the staff here is working on a volunteer basis. We have to find the personal time to clean up messes like this. That's why we encourage you to use the Report Function. Its also why I am encouraging you all to read the text above and keep it in mind with all posts in the General Area of the BFF. You can of course get personal in the Premium Members forum- there is far less moderation going on there: that is part of what its for. The General Area is a bit easier to view and we want to keep it clean. Its not about who is right or wrong, who is a proponent or not; the moderation staff does not care about that. We care about keeping this forum running, which it won't do if it goes all nasty.

 

Thanks for reading this rant. This thread is now open.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
  • gigantor pinned this topic
  • gigantor unpinned this topic
  • gigantor locked this topic
  • gigantor locked and pinned this topic
×
×
  • Create New...