Jump to content
masterbarber

The realism of the Patterson-Gimlin Film subject cannot be replicated with a costume so; what are the possibilities? (2)

Recommended Posts

Little Foot
11 hours ago, Twist said:

A snow leopard is not some unknown creature, not an apples to apples comparison.  

 

Just out of curiosity, did they bring forth a body to study as proof?  I don't remember.  I know they have video proof.

 

Honestly, I don't think Roger Patterson had the means, nor the know-how, to pull off a hoax this convincing.  Even today, over 51 years later, it would be extremely expensive to duplicate what he filmed in 1967 unless CGI was involved.  To this day, Bob Gimlin stands by what happened that day, and he seems to me to be completely genuine.  I'm a pretty good judge of character, too.

 

For the life of me, I don't understand why "science" won't at least try to find one of these animals.  There's literally thousands of eyewitnesses, pictures, videos, footprints, DNA samples, etc., that warrant a further look.  The stigma about "bigfoot" needs to be put on the backburner until sufficient time, effort, and resources are made toward bigfoot's discovery.  If it is not discovered after that, then, and only then, can they reasonably assume that there's no such animal.  Otherwise, the only thing that will convince science that it exists is a body.  That will definitely happen one day, in my opinion, if science won't do what they are supposed to do.  It may have already happened at some point in the past and covered up.

 

Personally, I think bigfoot's existence is known by a select few in this country, but they are being silenced for reasons that we can only speculate.  I'm not a "tin-foil hat" kinda guy, but I refuse to believe that some people somewhere, probably in our government or military, don't already have proof.  And, although I've never actually seen bigfoot myself, I would never ever call the thousands upon thousands of people who have seen one all liars, mistaken, delusional, or hoaxers.  It only take one real visual out of all of those thousands to be true for the animal exist, therefore it does exist, in my opinion.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
Posted (edited)
On 3/16/2019 at 10:18 PM, Squatchy McSquatch said:

pattyleg.gif.6442704b52b6a311273c0ecac62789e6.gifgemoralegs.JPG.6ce6f7030b83b963a28003400d5d56eb.JPG

 

Left: Patty                                                                             Right: Gemora gorilla legs (PRE-PGF)

 

(arms and hands hanging roughly the same length/level)

 

(similarly 'high' crotch area)

 

 

Having seen the Gemora suit, I would say it looks more like a gorilla than, say, a Cat or Dog but it is laughable as a gorilla suit.  

 

You contend the pic on the right looks very much like the one on the left.  I disagree.  In order to settle the issue though all we have to do is play a video of Patty and a video of any number of movie uses of the Gemora suit moving or walking.   It does not look real at all.   In spite of what is proposed in the post, the Gemora suit has a major sag to it esp in the legs and crotch.

 

 We could dream up an idea someone could take a Gemora suit and alter it in some yet unexplained way to become the PGF.  It's a stretch at best. It should be easy to demonstrate.  

 

Crickets chirp in place of such an effort.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
31 minutes ago, Little Foot said:

.........Honestly, I don't think Roger Patterson had the means, nor the know-how, to pull off a hoax this convincing.  Even today, over 51 years later, it would be extremely expensive to duplicate what he filmed in 1967 unless CGI was involved.........

 

To accuse Patterson of hoaxing the film is either ignorance (willful or unintentional) of the film and associated footprint detail as well as the history of the area, or being overwhelmed by the "irrational rejection based on an emotional response to the possibility that the Sasquatch actually exists" that Dr. Grieve wrote about, or a lawyeresque attack on Patterson in order to destroy the acceptance of sasquatchery.

 

.......For the life of me, I don't understand why "science" won't at least try to find one of these animals.........Personally, I think bigfoot's existence is known by a select few in this country, but they are being silenced for reasons that we can only speculate........

 

I have come to believe that government knows of the existence of these creatures and has taken an intentional position of faux ignorance and covert downplay upon direct sasquatch reports from field employees and the public. I based that belief on several factors, but primarily upon the behavior of government personnel from the lowest level blue collar employees and contractors in the field to executive pay schedule appointees over the past half century since the Patterson film was shot and published. The official silence or snide commentary of outdoor based agencies at both the state and federal level are deafening. It is precisely the behavior that I used and observed in my own 35 year career as a federal employee and administrator. I have also pondered the reasons for this phenomenon, and have also come up with a few good possibilities and likelihoods. First, field personnel and front line supervision and administration are reluctant to report activity upstream for the same reasons why private citizens often don't report it; belittlement, disbelief, ridicule, and danger to one's professional career. Secondly, the existence of these creatures will greatly complicate government responsibility, and this fact is exponentially so if they end up scientifically designated as a hominin. In fact, if these creatures are determined to be a human sub-species, it may be the most significant event in the history of this planet since the life of Christ, or at least will register up there with the development of atomic energy and space travel.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
1 hour ago, Little Foot said:

 

Just out of curiosity, did they bring forth a body to study as proof?  I don't remember.  I know they have video proof.

 

Honestly, I don't think Roger Patterson had the means, nor the know-how, to pull off a hoax this convincing.  Even today, over 51 years later, it would be extremely expensive to duplicate what he filmed in 1967 unless CGI was involved.  To this day, Bob Gimlin stands by what happened that day, and he seems to me to be completely genuine.  I'm a pretty good judge of character, too.

 

For the life of me, I don't understand why "science" won't at least try to find one of these animals.  There's literally thousands of eyewitnesses, pictures, videos, footprints, DNA samples, etc., that warrant a further look.  The stigma about "bigfoot" needs to be put on the backburner until sufficient time, effort, and resources are made toward bigfoot's discovery.  If it is not discovered after that, then, and only then, can they reasonably assume that there's no such animal.  Otherwise, the only thing that will convince science that it exists is a body.  That will definitely happen one day, in my opinion, if science won't do what they are supposed to do.  It may have already happened at some point in the past and covered up.

 

Personally, I think bigfoot's existence is known by a select few in this country, but they are being silenced for reasons that we can only speculate.  I'm not a "tin-foil hat" kinda guy, but I refuse to believe that some people somewhere, probably in our government or military, don't already have proof.  And, although I've never actually seen bigfoot myself, I would never ever call the thousands upon thousands of people who have seen one all liars, mistaken, delusional, or hoaxers.  It only take one real visual out of all of those thousands to be true for the animal exist, therefore it does exist, in my opinion.

 

That's pretty much the way I look at it also. Here is how I had termed it in the past; If Bigfoot does not exist, why do we have all of this evidence? 

Are all these thousands of sightings over the last fifty or more years made up stories? Are they seeing hoaxers waiting in a spot just to be seen for a few seconds? What's making all these 15-20 in. or longer tracks, some showing toe impressions, many with stride lengths longer than a human could manage in a normal walk, some in remote areas where not many people go, some deeper than a human could achieve. (not even referring to the PGF). 

What is making these howls, screams, whoops etc, that can't be easily attributed to any known animal?

 

This is my thinking; When you look at it using common sense, if Bigfoot does not exist, there shouldn't be this much evidence. It just seems like far too much evidence, and from many different areas, for something that many believe doesn't exist.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
25 minutes ago, OkieFoot said:

 

That's pretty much the way I look at it also. Here is how I had termed it in the past; If Bigfoot does not exist, why do we have all of this evidence? 

Are all these thousands of sightings over the last fifty or more years made up stories? Are they seeing hoaxers waiting in a spot just to be seen for a few seconds? What's making all these 15-20 in. or longer tracks, some showing toe impressions, many with stride lengths longer than a human could manage in a normal walk, some in remote areas where not many people go, some deeper than a human could achieve. (not even referring to the PGF). 

What is making these howls, screams, whoops etc, that can't be easily attributed to any known animal?

 

This is my thinking; When you look at it using common sense, if Bigfoot does not exist, there shouldn't be this much evidence. It just seems like far too much evidence, and from many different areas, for something that many believe doesn't exist.

 

 

 

To play devils advocate for a bit, with all this overwhelming evidence, why does it not lead to proof?   Has there ever been something with so much evidence pointing to it yet remain unproven?  This is what baffles me in regards to BF.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
54 minutes ago, Twist said:

 

To play devils advocate for a bit, with all this overwhelming evidence, why does it not lead to proof?   Has there ever been something with so much evidence pointing to it yet remain unproven?  This is what baffles me in regards to BF.  

 

It is a quality vs quantity thing.

 

One small finger bone in more valuable than the PGF, the Bossburg tracks, or anything else by a factor of a million.

 

People like DWA thought that if you could amass enough “bad” evidence? At some point it would break the camels back. Science simply doesn’t work like that, and it’s request to us is not for more plaster casts or film. It’s for physical evidence. A bone, a tooth, etc.

 

They have found evidence of mastodons being butchered in California over 100,000 years ago. We’re they modern humans? Or something else? We don’t know because again no physical evidence. But it should push us to look. Butchered mastodon bones IS solid evidence. Unlike debating about monkey suits and stompers? That evidence cannot be faked.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
Posted (edited)

I get that Norse and agree 100% as well as encourage 1 body to be taken.  I still question though,  given the massive amount of evidence be it sightings, footprints or DNA, why haven’t we found our BF finger bone?   It’s hard to wrap my head around.  

 

I guess maybe finding the fingerbone in the mass of “evidence” is like me expecting 1,000 monkeys with 1,000 typewriters to produce a Shakespearean work eventually.  I’d be happy with just one piece, not the whole body of work.  No pun intended. 😂

Edited by Twist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Twist said:

I get that Norse and agree 100% as well as encourage 1 body to be taken.  I still question though,  given the massive amount of evidence be it sightings, footprints or DNA, why haven’t we found our BF finger bone?   It’s hard to wrap my head around.  

 

Thats easy I think if you look at the fossil record of other hominids or even extant apes. It’s rather pathetic. Look at Denisovans or Gigantopethicus? The Homo Nadeli find was a spectacular find. Probably more fossils there than all other hominid species combined.

 

If Sasquatch is a Homo “Blank” it may cannibalize it’s dead and bury the bones in some ceremonial manner we are not aware of. Again look at the cave of the Homo Nadeli find? 

 

I think most importantly we do not find fossils 100,000 plus years old of hominids in North America? Because no one is looking! I think the 12000 year old land bridge theory is universally accepted. So why dig past that level? The Calico site is an example of flying in the face of modern thinking.

Edited by norseman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
1 minute ago, norseman said:

 

Thats easy I think if you look at the fossil record of other hominids or even extant apes. It’s rather pathetic. Look at Denisovans or Gigantopethicus? The Homo Nadeli find was a spectacular find. Probably more fossils there than all other hominid species combined.

 

If Sasquatch is a Homo “Blank” it may cannibalize it’s dead and bury the bones in some ceremonial manner we are not aware of. Again look at the cave of the Homo Nadeli find? 

 

I think most importantly we do not find fossils 100,000 plus years old of hominids in North America? Because no one is looking! I think the 12000 year old land bridge theory is universally accepted. So why dig past that level? The Calico site is an example of flying in the face of modern thinking.

 

But we don’t really need fossils, if they are still living breathing creatures as wide spread as the sightings would lead some to believe we should find something!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
1 hour ago, Twist said:

To play devils advocate for a bit, with all this overwhelming evidence, why does it not lead to proof?........

 

Because proof (IAW both valid scientists and pseudoscientists) only consists of a carcass, and that is a whole bunch more difficult to produce than to demand, especially since doing so is also illegal.

 

........Has there ever been something with so much evidence pointing to it yet remain unproven?........

 

1) Extraterrestrial visitors

2) Lake "monsters" throughout the northern hemisphere, both Old World and New

3) Other man-beasts in the Old World

4) How about some DNA evidence of an ancient polar bear in the Himalayas (if you believe "science", that's a slam-dunk, isn't it?.....or is that only when DNA "dis-proves" Bigfoot?)

5) Giant squid, described by many people literally thousands of years ago, and only accepted by modern science in slow phases from 1850 to as recently as the first photographs of a live specimen in 2006

6) The gorilla, also legend for over 3000 years until a carcass was brought to Europe bt Paul duChaillu in 1855

7) Maybe a few of the 229 new species discovered in 2018?: https://earthsky.org/earth/new-species-2018

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OkieFoot
1 hour ago, Twist said:

 

To play devils advocate for a bit, with all this overwhelming evidence, why does it not lead to proof?   Has there ever been something with so much evidence pointing to it yet remain unproven?  This is what baffles me in regards to BF.  

 

One explanation I've read as to why we don't find bones is they will decompose after a period of time and in certain types of soils in warm, somewhat humid to humid environments will decompose the bones faster. I've never been clear if micro-organisms eat decomposing bones or not. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

^^^^ If you are thinking of temperate rainforest there are a couple factors  including soil pH and the plethora of small rodent species .. and some larger .. that consume bone to extract calcium that is otherwise difficult to obtain in such environments.     The ideal conditions for preserving remains to fossilize are desert floors with flash floods ... not places bigfoots are reported.  

 

The more a person knows about ecology on the whole, and the more that knowledge guides their expectations, the more biological sense what we have, and don't have, makes.    It doesn't comply with our wishful thinking but it does very much match what a qualified, and unbiased, biologist should expect.     We should not be throwing out the baby (bigfoot) with the bathwater (lack of proof), instead we should be asking why, then adjusting our approaches to match.  

 

I think those (SWWASAS, maybe BTW, maybe others) who have suggested looking at volcanic debris flows are on target with good biology and ecology .. thick volcanic deposits are the single best exception to the lack of appropriate conditions for preservation of fossils / remains in the Pac NW that I know of.    Between melting remains of avalanches and the runoff cutting through ash beds, the area around Mt St Helens would seem to have a lot recommending it as a place to search if it is within reasonable travel distances.

 

MIB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
1 hour ago, Twist said:

 

But we don’t really need fossils, if they are still living breathing creatures as wide spread as the sightings would lead some to believe we should find something!  

 

I do not believe they are nearly as “wide spread” as believed. I do not believe many people who are searching for the creature are out there looking to collect a specimen. And if they are performing some sort of burial ritual? We are not tripping over the bones like a deer or an elk.

 

Its almost like we are hunting a lost tribe vs an animal.

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squatchy McSquatch
6 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 

 

Having seen the Gemora suit, I would say it looks more like a gorilla than, say, a Cat or Dog but it is laughable as a gorilla suit.  

 

You contend the pic on the right looks very much like the one on the left.  I disagree.  In order to settle the issue though all we have to do is play a video of Patty and a video of any number of movie uses of the Gemora suit moving or walking.   It does not look real at all.   In spite of what is proposed in the post, the Gemora suit has a major sag to it esp in the legs and crotch.

 

 We could dream up an idea someone could take a Gemora suit and alter it in some yet unexplained way to become the PGF.  It's a stretch at best. It should be easy to demonstrate.  

 

Crickets chirp in place of such an effort.

 

 

 

 

 

Okie you are aware that Gemora had more than one gorilla suit aren’t you?

 

If you have seen that particular suit in motion please share a link.

 

Afaik the suit pictured in my graphic is a different suit than the one you claim is saggy in the legs and the crotch. Different colour, too...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
1 minute ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

 

Okie you are aware that Gemora had more than one gorilla suit aren’t you?

 

If you have seen that particular suit in motion please share a link.

 

Afaik the suit pictured in my graphic is a different suit than the one you claim is saggy in the legs and the crotch. Different colour, too...

 

 

 

 I will give my take on it when I see it then.  Makes me think you agree with me the 'saggy suit' could not be the suit.  I'll take a closer look at the next suit offered.  2 suits!  I did not know that.  Good to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...