The main thing that bothers me about this film is Why was it spliced between :41 and :42 seconds. If you look at the stump in right bottom corner it suddenly disappears, and the 'angle' that the person filming changed from an approx. 30 degree angle to approx 10 degree angle (if you plot a line from where Pattie was first seen to entering the woods and draw another line from cameraman position to Patty's line of travel) Anyone ever mention this ??
@Parasite10000000 -I agree with you about attempting a hoax, and getting lucky in the process. Patterson had been called a "liar" and a "conman" by some. It's very possible that the "conman" was in the right place at the right time on that day.
I have always believed that the case for big foot will be made by the evidence and proved or disproved by the evidence. I totally respect the forensic analysis presented in your video and hope that those of a similar academic background will debate the the facts with you. It is only through the careful assembly, analysis and testing of the data that the truth will finally emerge.
It isn't what can be seen clearly by the eyes that bothers me, but what can't be seent. While the female creature does seem to have a buttocks to sit down upon, it doesn't seem to have an opening which curves up into the anus forming the crack normally needed to elimate waste out of. All primates do possess these necessary things.
~ While RP sought publicity Gimlin didn't, avoided discussing the encounter until after RP's death. He later said he'd avoided publicity after RP & promoter Al DeAtley had broken their agreement to pay Gimlin a share of any profits generated by the film
~ RP received a letter from a man in Thailand "A Sasquatch was being held in a Buddhist monastery" RP preparing an expedition to retrieve this creature only to learn it was a hoax. RP died of Hodgkin's lymphoma in 1972
least1 example your hypothesis will remain unproven & go no further towards overturning the current accepted theory that no factual basis or corobborating evidence for a "cryptid" exists
* In the PGF case it's been repeatedly falsified as NOT being a "actual cryptid" NOT by the proponents as should be but by opponents of this outlandish prank that has many antecedents in the cottage hoaxing industry
^ Google Karl Popper on 'Falsifiability' in the Scientific Method
@JgarfbiHoover So, IF the film resists all such falsification, it must be seen as positive evidence arguing for the veracity of the hypothesis. Of course, that alone would not be enough to overturn current accepted scientific understanding, but science isn't made up solely of "Eureka" moments.
@BloatedSensations "IF the film resists all such falsification, it must be seen as positive evidence"
* The many analysis I've seen by creditible & skeptical scientists have shown specifically just the opposite
* Patterson's book previous to this prank gives us a good clue 'Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?' was self-published in 1966. The book has been characterized as "little more than a collection of newspaper clippings laced together with Patterson's circus-poster style prose
@JgarfbiHoover "...towards overturning the current accepted theory that no factual basis or corobborating evidence for a "cryptid" exists"
There is no such "accepted theory" - You appear to be confusing the word "theory" with the words "conjecture" and/or "opinion." You can not base a "theory" on an absence of evidence - such is a logical fallacy. To do so would require a claim of omniscience. Your "theory" is that no evidence exists? I'd LOVE to hear how you'd attempt to falsify THAT.
@BloatedSensations "There is no such "accepted theory .... I'd LOVE to hear how you'd attempt to falsify THAT"
~ Very easily done, we'd just use anyone of your "hundred more examples of how the film could be falsified"
~ Since PGF is regarded by many as poison to anyone with a reputation as a serious scientist who uses multi-various analytical techniques it isn't surprising that the mainstream scientific community has let this floperoo fall by it's own weight .... Like in ploink !
@JgarfbiHoover "Very easily done, we'd just use anyone of your "hundred more examples of how the film could be falsified"
Impossible. As I said, if your "theory", as you have claimed, is that no evidence exists, your "theory" is impossible to falsify. It would require nothing short of omniscience to do so. I'd like you to give me one, single, specific example of how such a "theory" could be falsified. You were the one that invoked Karl Popper. So, tell me: How could your "theory" be falsified?
You're confusing yourself w/the fact "that no evidence exists" for corroborating the PGF is fake theory by stating it "is impossible to falsify", the 2 don't follow because as I stated it isn't up to the opponent of the upstart hypothesis to disprove a negative (impossible)
For example I can state about a person by asking a Q "Did you stop beating your wife after you were released from prison on child molestation charges yes or no? Be hard to A or disprove eh?
@JgarfbiHoover "the opponent of the upstart hypothesis to disprove a negative (impossible)"
DISPROVE a negative? I'll assume you meant to say "prove" a negative. The problem with your statement is that proving the PGF fake is not proving a negative. Your task is to prove that the film IS a fraud - that's a positive. And, I've already told you how you could disprove it. I gave two specific examples, and I can provide many more, if you wish...
@BloatedSensations P1 "The problem with your statement" Is that you consider the PGF a positive step towards proving the existence of a "cryptid" I consider it a negative, a hoax, a charlitons prank and RP said it was so to the creator of the costume ^. So your confusion is based upon symantics, a belief system & trying to draw me into a discussion IS A BUNCH OF SILLY BULLSHIT AND YOU KNOW IT. SO AGAIN WHAT IS YOUR POINT OF DISCUSSING A PRANK, A HOAX, AND A CHARLITONS ^^ SCAM SCIENTIFICALLY?
@JgarfbiHoover "Is that you consider the PGF a positive step towards proving the existence of a "cryptid"" - That's your own assumption. And, it's an incorrect one. I've made no such claim.
@JgarfbiHoover "SO AGAIN WHAT IS YOUR POINT OF DISCUSSING A PRANK, A HOAX, AND A CHARLITONS ^^ SCAM SCIENTIFICALLY?"
It's you that keeps attempting to turn the conversation to the specifics of the PGF. Not me. I was merely criticizing your seemingly poor abilities with logic, reason, rationality, the intentions and purposes of science, and the application of the scientific method.
@JgarfbiHoover ...You, however, have thus far completely evaded my request for just one specific example regarding your "theory". You're a Popper fan, right? And, you've claimed it is an "accepted theory" that no evidence exists. So, please provide me with a single example of how that "accepted theory" might be falsified. Until then, your repeated attempts to change the subject with all of your Patterson irrelevance will be ignored. (and quite possibly after as well)
^ Morris said that he sold an ape suit to Patterson via mail-order in 1967, thinking it was going to be used in what Patterson described as a "prank" After the initial sale, Morris said that Patterson telephoned him asking how to make the "shoulders more massive" Morris says he suggested that whoever wore the suit should wear wide football-type shoulder pads
^^ BH's mother (Opel) & nephew (John Miller) corroborated BH's story (they saw the ape suit in his car)
@JgarfbiHoover When you hear a Scientist say something like "No evidence for such a cryptid exists", one of three things are happening: (1) They're speaking parsimoniously, and their real meaning is simply that they are not aware of any such evidence. (2) They are engaged in non-scientific conjecture and expression of personal opinion, and have just failed to point that out. (3) They actually mean exactly what they said. In which case, they're not very bright and are very poor Scientists.
~ Some yrs after the PGF's publicity, Greg Long interviewed ppl who described Patterson as a liar, a conman & sometimes worse. Pat Mason, Glen Koelling, Bob Swanson and Vilma Radford claimed Patterson never repaid loans they made to him for a bigfoot movie Roger planned
~ RP's rented expensive 16 mm camera 05/13 kept it longer than contracted & an arrest warrant was been issued for him on 10/17 to get it back. Charge dismissed after RP returned the camera in working order
@BloatedSensations "When you hear a" conman "say something like" PGF is believable evidence you have to wonder about motivation especially when ....
~ RP rents a camera with the intent purpose of capturing a 'BigFoot' on film & with in a day or so the creature "cryptid"ly obliges to the request with only a few backward thrown snears over his shoulder to the contraire
~ Bernard Heuvelmans the 'Father of Cryptozoology' expressed his opinion that the figure in the PGF contained a "Suited Human"
@PostToastie Yes, and I want to congratulate you because of this impressive presentation. Everything is cristal clear..40 years after there is no suit and so far no one could imitate Patty - that magnificant creature. Many have tried & failed.. I call all sceptics & non- beliveres to see the NASI Report. They want science, this is science.
I'll bet every one saying "fake" has never even went in the woods to look! lol, not a very convincing argument! I think I'll go with the preponderance of evidence for now. so,. most likely real! if only 1 video, photo or story is true/real/accurate,. than there you have it! BIGFOOT! of course most people don't think scientifically? they just say "fake".
Sure fire sign of someone lending a hand to or willingly participating in a hoax is the wording in NASI "not yet been proven to be a forgery". This is of course the opposite of the Scientific Method of Inquiry when determining factuality. It's not up to anyone to 'Disprove' anything it's up to the prognosticators of this extraordinary film to prove that it's a genuine 'Bigfoot' and couldn't of been anything else. This has not been done. BTW Bob H. is still waiting to get paid for his monkey act.
@JgarfbiHoover Are you serious? The standard of the scientific method is to repeatedly attempt to falsify - or *disprove* - a developed hypothesis. Only if an hypothesis resists all attempts to disprove it, is it then said to become a formal theory. If the hypothesis is that the PGF shows an actual cryptid, then, according to the scientific method, repeated failures to disprove such should go a hell of a long way in determining its veracity.
@BloatedSensations P1 "Are you serious?" Yes I'm dead serious, you have it all wrong
* The default scientific community starting position for any hypothesis willing to overturn it & the understanding of human evolution excludes this PGF film as genuine & classifies it as a hoax
* Science doesn't go around trying to disprove upstart working or tenative hypothesis based upon for example PGF of a 'Suited Human'
* Falsifiability ^ comes with the posited hypothesis. If you can't falsify with at
@JgarfbiHoover "the understanding of human evolution excludes this PGF"
Science is provisional. Its conclusions are drawn solely from known data. Science adjusts its "understanding" to incorporate new data that withstands the rigors of the scientific method - not the other way around. Your quoted statement is meaningless. The PGF may be incompatible with what we currently know of primate evolution. But, to science, that, in and of itself, says NOTHING regarding the veracity of the film.
@BloatedSensations "Science adjusts its "understanding" to incorporate new data that withstands the rigors of the scientific method - not the other way around"
~ Correct & it's still waiting to have 1 micron of solid physical evidence to validate this "crytid"
"quoted statement is meaningless"
~ Of course it is to the braindead cult believers of hoax's that are way of returning back to humans the mystery that science has taken out of this world by explaining the once thought inexplicable.
@JgarfbiHoover "If you can't falsify with at least1 example your hypothesis will remain unproven"
The hypothesis that the PGF shows an actual, currently unidentified animal is falsifiable. If more film turns up matching the PGF that shows a human putting on the suit, the hypothesis is false. If someone unquestionably identifies a zipper - false. I could probably think of a hundred more examples of how the film could be falsified.
It never was by PGF owners who pawned it off to several film companies w/exclusive rights (illegal) at the same time to get as much $ as possible before the scam was reveiled. Another sure fire sign of attempting to perpetrate a 'Bigfoot' hoax
"If film matching the PGF that shows a human putting on the suit"
Hardly imaginable since they destroyed the suit after the film was made to hide their deception WTH is the problem?
@JgarfbiHoover "Hardly imaginable since they destroyed the suit after the film was made to hide their deception WTH is the problem?"
Interesting... So, even though you advised me to Google Karl Popper, it would seem, from your response quoted above, that you really have no understating of what empirical falsification actually is, do you?
@BloatedSensations "that u really have no understating of what empirical falsification actually is do u?
Seeing that you just discovered what I knew long ago, I'm way ahead of the curve. Using multi-various analytical techniques, such as exploring the hoaxers past associations, allegations & charges brought against his reputation, etc. & THE FACT THAT A MONKEY SUIT WAS DESIGNED & SHIPPED TO PATTERSON BY PHILLIP MORRIS OF MORRIS COSTUMES VIA MAIL ORDER IN 1967 WHATS YOUR POINT OF EVEN ARGUING?
"After going through enormous scientific time and expense to convert the original film images into super-ultra HD images with the most sophisticated hardware and software available, some of it being assembled just for this purpose, we subjected it to the YouTube filter, which re-films the images through a slurry of translucent diarrhea, then compresses the 30 GB file down to a more manageable 30 B file."
I've had many encounters, these beings are real and they are human not ape. see my channel for esoteric details on sasquatch. great vid i havent seen this one before
@PostToastie oh...are you sure they are not credible? all im saying is that its starting to say on many sites and wiki that the footage has no been debunked. Guys have apparently come foward explaining how the costume was made etc....
In the film you can clearly see a break in the suit when it turns. It's obvious it's a suit with two or more pieces not the standard zipper monkey suit. It looks very fake to me.
@GA040607 More than one person claims to have worn the costume, and they have changed their stories from interview to interview. Patterson and Gimlin on the other hand, have stuck by their stories, Patterson until his death in 1972, and Gimlin even to this day 43 years later.
If you understand anything about human anatomy youll see that this CANNOT be a man in a costume the upper arms are too long the foot is MADE different with the fulcrum-talus bone/ankle in the middle massive vastus lateralis-lus who would have bothered to make breasts for a costume? This thing is real they are the true hominids of the Earth our ancestors pushed them out of the temperate zones into areas uninhabitable for us
The Pacific NW has a lot of moisture, that's for sure. As for snow, there r plenty of lower elevations that are dense forest. As one would travel west towards the Pacific, chances of avoiding snow pack are greatly increased. Look at the Redwoods. These trees huge the coastline and rarely get enough snow that last for any length of time. If the creature is nomadic, it make sense to travel West in Winter and still avoid detection? Look up Patterson location and it's proximity to the pacific.
Check the story of the discovery of a hitherto unknown group of Lowland Gorillas found in the Congo in 2007...over 100,000 apes unknown to science...true fact..
@mozillabytes "The first scientific description of gorillas dates back to an article by Savage and the naturalist Jeffries Wyman in 1847 in Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History,[23][24] where Troglodytes gorilla is described, now known as the Western Gorilla. Other species of gorilla are described in the next couple of years.[8]"
@cedartree696 Thankyou. Your last point in particular is one I've been saying for years. They are either doing alot of moving, which greatly increases thier chance of discovery or, keeping to a small population limited to ,ok, the Pacific Northwest. Inbreeding would have reared its ugly head after this many generations of iscolation, making them genetically unviable and drastically increasing thier chance of discovery.
Yep. The logistics just don't hold up. There would have to be many thousands. Also, when the snow pack settles in for the winter large mammals either hibernate or head for the lowlands because they simply cannot otherwise survive 10' of snow. When heading for the lowlands their populations become very dense because there is significantly less acreage.
Also, there is the simple issue of calories per acre required for such a large beast & thus how much land it would have to cover ea day to forage
People like digglyda are never going to do any real research because, like others before him/her it may shake their immovable scepticism.Research as we know is only done by those that actually want to find the truth.
From all the information I have read I am of the opinion that if "bigfoot" does indeed exist they likey migrate.This would explain the elusive nature,and also would likey be a good survival tactic.I found this to be one the most informative clips on the subject which I have viewed.Well done!!
At 7'-3 1/2" and weighing 1,957 Ib's be kinda hard to be "elusive" even in his "nature"al setting don't you think? He'd be as hungry as a bear and invading campsites on a regular basis I would imagine. As for this supposed anaysis it reminds me of intentionally faked UK photo's of Ufo's put out for analysis by scientists. One French scientist wrote a report coached in all the appropriate terms disavowing any chance of the photo's being faked BS.
jane goodall who probably understands primates better than anyone, thinks that bigfoot could exist, so we have to keep an open mind, none of us know for sure so unless they cut down all the habitat, then its pointless to be too dogmatic, one way or the other........
even in the winter there is food, animals etc alike, 1,600-1,800 moose get by in the winter and they don't eat animals, i would tell you to get it into your head back but you can't put 10 lbs of knowledge it seems into a 5lb bowl lol
Its like flogging a beached fish lol
Bigfoot is not a Gorilla, nor is Jaws a goldfish lol
Its funny, people have no idea how much food there is in the wild and im just talking for humans, now other animals that might have adapted too live in the woods alone the food supply could be endless even in smaller areas.
I'm not even talking about eating animals either, that just adds a ridiculous amount of food too the equation.
Its ludicrous too suggest it doesn't have enough food, what else do you think it does with its time? knitting?
because these forests are so remote there are many reasons bigfoot could survive . even the bbc nature department said that food supply and surroundings werent the issue. its extremely unlikely but not impossible that these creatures exist......
My opinion and common sense too me says its very real footage and when i say common sense, there are things about the Patterson film that make sense to me that other people don't notice, like how it walks and doesn't even look where its walking, if i was a man in a suit, i would do what i can too keep from tripping, plus no suit back then fits and looks that good, im not even convinced that suits back then can be made that well let alone that one was made in order to fake the film.
Too further push the food question, someone might make the same claim if they never saw a polar bear, saying there isn't enough berry's or grubs or some other normal bear diet food, but actually the forest has plenty of food.
Not to go back to bears again but they sometimes weight way more then 400lbs yet there number are very high compared to what Bigfoot would be and they have no problems.
Also Sasquatch doesn't buy soap or shower so he saves money there lol
The forest DOES NOT have plenty of food. AND Bigfoot numbers would have to be much higher than that of Bears. Because: Bigfoot has NEVER been hunted by man and being a large primate it's reproductive capacity would almost certainly be much less than Bears. Northern forests are covered in snow in winter: Bears hibernate...what does Bigfoot do?
Bears also likely eat a lot more, point made there are 20,000 polar bears in Canada alone but that sounds way more unrealistic then the idea of Bigfoot, how do they eat? they are 1600lbs, twice its size, what about other bears that are clearly over a 1000lbs living in the woods, how do you account for them? plenty of larger animals don't hibernate, does that make them less likely to be real?
Point is 1000's upon 1000's of large animals find food in the wild and Bigfood would eat a bigger verity
Can't you get it into your head? Bigfoot CANNOT eat what is not there. Polar bears travel to folow the retreating/advancing ice and rely on seals as the critical item of their food chain. Other Bears HAVE to hibernate in winter because food is unavailable. ungulates and ruminants can get by on grass, moss & lichen in these areas. Bigfoot is meant to be a large, bipedal primate...bigger than Gorillas. Gorillas eat 60 pounds of rich vegetable material per day...Bigfoot would STARVE.
I just finished taking a peek at your channel and you rub people the wrong way with ignorant comments very often, its clear as a bell that they can, you just think your right or trying to cause trouble, im sorry your not intelligent enough to grasp the idea of how animals gather food in the wild, obviously the concept is over your head, its not my actual job to pound it into your head even though i made it so simple a child could understand it.
Those foods DO NOT exist in adequate amounts in northern forest habitat in large enough quantities to support the existence of a viable population of Bigfoot. Compare the yearly yield of Northern forest to equatorial rain-forest and you can see for yourself: Gorillas CAN survive in the Congo because there is adequate food available. Bigfoot cannot exist in North America 'cos there is NOT. If Bigfoot lived in Canada he would starve in the Winter. Simple. NO BIGFOOT!
You're about dumber than a bag of hammers ain't ya diggly? How did native americans survive the winter in the northern states and Canada? How long can a primate body go without food as long as there's water? Ask the Jews that survived Nazi Germany during WW2......
try and think about what you're saying from now on.
I did some quick research on the North American Science Institute. From what I've found, it appears that NASI is a "science" dressed up pro-bigfoot site. It looks to me that there may be a strong case for confirmation bias. As scientific as this thing sounds, I remain skeptical.
Besides, why doesn't the whatever it is in the film have butt cheeks? Gorillas and humans have them. This creature is supposedly between gorilla and human. So, where's the butt cheeks?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It took Western man 60 years of searching for the Panda bear in China before proof of it's existence was discovered, verified and accepted. And a Panda is slow, brightly colored, active during daytime, and not too intelligent. Now imagine a faster, darkly colored, mostly nocturnal, and relatively intelligent creature that is probably as rare as a panda -- I'm not surprised that a living breathing Sasquatch or related species has not yet conclusively been discovered.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Welcome to the fray..there are those here that truly believe that every sighting, print and shred of data is all part of an alaborate mafia-esque hoax...every witness is a liar, and every print man made..good luck trying to convince them otherwise...
bigfoot is protector of the entrances of the inner earth. there are diff types of bigfoot in different continents, snow ones in tibet called yeti, north american bigfoot, read up about the islands of guadalcanal they have some called roma which are supposedly intelligent and have vast caves with mines and lights. even the prime minister beleives in them. also read about the headless valley prostpectors who were found beheaded, legend states that an entrance of the inner earth is near that area
There are over 80 planes that have crashed in the Pacific Northwest and never been found. People don't realize how massive the world is. Of course an animal could stay undetected. Even a large one.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I did plenty of lsd in my time and I am pretty normal in a social setting. and as far as tis video his bro's said its a fake and laugh about it all the time. I cant beleive more people are not aware of this. This is coming from a person who is on the fence with this shit.I might be out of place i watched about 2 seconds of this vid read a few comments and put my 2 cents in.sorry i am really drunk.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
has anyone heard of the shape shifting story's? I just had some burn out druggie try to tell me that bigfoot can be any animal it chooses. OK enough already, anyone who uses LSD or any other drug on a regular basis....shut the hell up! no wonder its so hard to get government funding to research unknown plants and animals when there are complete functioning idiots dancing around telling nonsencical dragon and unicorn storys.
thank you. i just want someone to get proof of these guys. we have the TEch today to do it. So people to protect them lets get proof. till then we can never sAy if they are real or not. i know there a guy who works sometimes on FBI finger print cases who claims the Bigfoot exist. but still it would take a HD camera with no blur. and remember where you took the video. so then you can take people there. Funny this is that the natives call bigfoot THE BOSS of the forrest.
There was a small group of lowland gorillas discovered in the Congo last summer...just a small troup...something like 80,000 animals that had been undetected until 2008!! I have skeptics that say 'Oh well...that's the Congo!! America is ALL explored!!" BC alone has over 200,000 square km of dense uninhabited terrain!! If there are 1000 Sasquatces in BC, that gives each animal an estimated 200 square km of living space...ever tried to cover an area 200 square km.?? What if there are 200?
No worries! It boggles the mind to think of these apes eluding detection until last year...and it must be remembered that these animals were not TRYING to remain hidden....imagine large bipeds that are aware of the threat we pose to them....
In time hopefully there will be a big breakthru or discovery. Well if they are closer intellectually to us then it will make it much more difficult. But if we can prove their existence we can help preserve the environment and help protect these Creatures
They weren't discovered. Just nobody had bothered or thought to look for them there. There are good maps for that region of the Congo but it's 50 miles from the nearest road. Hunters told researchers that there were Gorillas there and when the research team went to investigate: Hey presto! Gorillas.
It's easy for 50,000 Bigfoot to stay hidden simply because they DO NOT exist. Ah, Bigfoot must be really secretive, elusive and a master at avoiding contact? Tell me...what does Bigfoot eat?
So they weren't discovered...the team went in and...didn't discover them...what would I use for lack of a better term? The dictionary defines 'discover' as follows--"to see, get knowledge of, learn of, find, or find out; gain sight or knowledge of (something previously unseen or unknown)". Could the term 'discover' be any MORE appropriate?? Hear that Post? They weren't discovered...it's just that nobody knew they were there..!!
I got a good chuckle out of that, too, but to tell you the truth, I was trying to figure out what the heck is going on in Hardin, Montana with the American Police Force.
You could use: 'located', 'identified', 'confirmed' or even 'found' more aptly in this instance rather than 'discovered'. They WERE NOT "discovered". Local tribesmen knew they were there as did hunters/poachers who revealed their location to the naturalists/scientists who went there and "discovered" them. These Gorillas have no relevance to the search for Bigfoot. Gorillas are very shy, elusive and wary of contact with humans BUT they are relatively easy to track and study once found.
...(cont) However, Bigfoot it seems must be a master of disguise and evasiveness beyond anything yet seen in a large mammal, AND a biped at that. The notion of a creature like Bigfoot existing on the North American continent is ridiculous. It simply is not possible that a large enough population of Bigfoots exists without leaving EVIDENCE of it's existence. Nobody can "discover" what is not there. Also nobody can disprove a negative either.
Evidence will be an example of a living creature or the body of a dead one. If 'you' or 'they' cannot provide either then any claims to Bigfoots existence remain unfounded. Burden of proof lies with those making the claim...PROVE Bigfoot exists. Men in suits IS NOT proof. Pattersons film is a man in a suit...how deluded can people be that they are willing to believe in the Patterson hoax? The creature Patterson/Gimlin desscribed was suprised at a distance of 25 feet or so...and it ambled off?..
Compared to the Congo...the North american continent is a desert in terms of food supply for 4 to 6 months of each year. Bears hibernate. The only other sizeable predator, the wolf, has to follow herds of game as they migrate to adequate food resources. What does Bigfoot do? How does it live? It IS a simple question. Does Bigfoot hibernate? (ridiculous) does it migrate (ridiculous) each year AND STILL manage to avoid contact with man? NOTHING I have said is nonsense. Answer my questions please?
In order for you to answer your own questions you will have to do much research, besides the BFRO, you can do an internet search, etc., but you will have to do quite a bit of reading on many different sites to find the answers to all of your questions. The answers are there for you, though, if you are willing to put forth the effort to find them. No-one is going to do it for you.
The BFRO is a haven for naive, ill-educated, untraveled and unwordly individuals who choose to believe in a creature called "Bigfoot" simply because it excites their imagination. Please tell me how Bigfoot meets it's dietary needs all year round in it's supposed habitat? Simple question...answer it please? What does Bigfoot eat?
What?? You call 'evidence' hundreds and hundreds of sightings for over 200+ years?? All liars and hoaxes! The footprints? COME ON!! Those are all made by the same hoaxers, that, for 200+ years have been jumping out in fur suits (at the risk of being shot and killed) to walk in front of people...there just ISN'T enough room in BCs 275,000 square miles of dense forest to hide such a species...
200 years?! The native americans are the only providers of 'evidence' over that time period...AND they record "Bigfoot" as a mythical creature as opposed to a real one. There have been Bigfoot sightings in more than 40 US states over the past 50 years. Are you suggesting that Bigfoot exists over that range of area? They ARE just that: Liars & hoaxers. Simple. There is no such creature simply because habitat & food soes not exist in adequate amount to sustain a viable pop' of such creatues.
No, but they do have to travel within their home territory which might involve considerable distances AND many wolf-packs are reliant upon the availability of migratory prey species such as Caaribou...which they will follow on their migration.
Footprints? I've seen casts of 3, 4, AND 5 toed animals purported to be 'Bigfoot'. Are they all genuine? All these people armed with cameras but never one with a large calibre rifle? Why no dead Bigfoot yet? There is room in BC's 275,000 sq miles to hide a population...JUST NOT FOOD for it. What does Bigfoot eat in BC's forest. Mainly coniferous forest...there is not adequate food supply all year round. Are you saying that Bigfoot hibernates?
The biggest single flaw in any argument about the existence of Bigfoot is: "what does Bigfoot eat?" You seem unable to offer me any suggestion as to what food supply a population of 6-7 foot tall, 400 pound beipedal primates would exist on. Tell me what you think Bigfoot lives on? A full grown Gorilla will eat about 60 pounds of vegetable diet each day. NO SUCH food supply exists in North American forest. Bigfoot does not exist because it cannot in the suggested habitat. The food IS NOT there.
To diggalyda : Not to rude, but your assertions are flawed, have you ever seen how big cows/bulls get (1000-2000 pounds) and all the eat mainly is grass and straw! the sasquatch has a wide range of roots,grasses,barks,and folage to chose from, not to mention the bugs,grubs,and small and even large animals it could eat (i.e deer, rabbit, squirrell,etc...) these animals probably eat vegitation during summer months and hunt and consume small game in winter month,or cold climate areas.
Most ungulates and ruminants do nothing but eat all day long because the calorific value of their diet is very poor AND many have to migrate to reach available food supplies. Don't you get it? There simply is not adequate food supply in Northern forest habitat to support the existence of a viable population of an animal like Bigfoot. The food is just not there in adequate amounts. 20-40% of Bears die each year 'cos of lack of food AND they HAVE to hibernate. Bigfoot DOES NOT EXIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is plenty of food out there for bigfoot, high calorie foods, even, you may want to research that a bit so you don't continue to look like a fool.
@digglyda Wrong ! I have seen this animal eat tree bark! Along with dear, dogs, and rabbit, there is plenty of food, I have with witnesses seen this animal within 36 inches. I know it 's real.I don't need the Patty film to convince me. The one I saw was white! The friends with me said the animal was a werewolf because this animal ran away on two feet, then to all fours! 30 miles outside of Cleveland OH near the metro- parks . I was once like you , and I didn't believe until that day I saw it!
You have been within 3 feet of a Sasquatch have you...how did you manage to do this, considering they are rarely seen at all, let alone within 3 feet of a human...with many witnesses..let me guess...camera jammed?...or are they afraid around cameras and won't come out if a camera is present...or...I know...you don't want to divulge their location in order to protect them...
@phatdic11 Which of the metroparks was it in? Was it shawnee hills or sleepy hollow or what? Some of them are very forested with rivers. Thanks for watching.
@Filmaker25 Yes I have! My brother was just attacked, or a simulated attack just 4 weeks ago! While throwing back a few , he decided to Bar B Q late night one night out in the country ,and was Intimidated by one of these creatures! The creature wanted the food! They are highly intelligent! They don't mean man any harm. You guys wonder why you cant find one? Its because you refuse to believe that God could create such a monster. I got news for you: Look in the mirror !
@digglyda this might be one of the dumbest comments Ive ever seen on youtube. Where in God's name did you get your information about 20-40% of bears die each year because of lack of food? I guess that explains why the Wisconsin state record bear, 738 lbs. was just shot a few weeks ago huh? Or that most states bear populations are FLOURISHING right now? Or why mountain lions are migrating east and now in Wisconsin because of the abundance of food? Do some research before you make up bullshit
I must admit the Freeman video gives me pause, because the creature is very massive. For the most part the jury is still out for me and I don't give it the attention I do the PGF. I wish Freeman had stayed silent, hoax or no. Most people don't take it serious because of his accent. If it was a hoax then it would be more believable as a result, or if it is real then few will believe it all because he has a funny way of talking, that is sad.
Why is Freeman a joke? Just because he may've been a dubious guy, doesn't make his video fake. It's just too good like PGF, how could a hillbilly pull off something like that? Always keep in mind, these creatures EXIST, therefore his video just might be real. My hunch says real, anyhow. Memorial Day too IMO, and definitely Marble Mountain, but the jury's still out on Snow walker and Redwoods, I'm not totally convinced they're fakes. I need solid proof from the people who made it them.
I think it's simple; they are real or they are fake. certainly SOME are fakes, but the basic premise is very easy, they exist or they don't. If they don't, then there have been some very good hoaxes, kudos to them! Patty is the best of all. But if they are real, one must separate the hoaxes from the real sightings and prints. How to do that? If we can't KNOW yet, then we have to sort the evidence and make calls on each case. How likely is each to be real or fake. Patty, being the best, is hard.
It's good to keep an open mind...I understand what you mean by believers believing all of the Bigfoot images cought on film. Freeman's footage is a joke...the Snow-walker footage is terrible...the Memorial day footage is crap...the Redwoods footage is laughable...to me the Patterson footage has, and alwyas will, stand the test of time. It's just too perfect.
I see the film and it looks very human, and at the same time not human. Bigfootforums has a section trying to recreate it as a costume, and it might fit, and might not fit, but to get it to fit as a costume seems difficult with the proportions. That it is not so obviously a suit, and that it is so realistic, so natural, makes me wonder.If it's a suit, it's not as described by Bob H. far more elaborate than that. Very well done. Which makes me wonder even more. I'm fine with it at only 6 ft. tall
What!!??? You don't believe Bob H's 'football helmet' story!!?? How about how he explained the muscle movement seen in the thighs, as his keys in his pocket??!! RIOT!!
I hate conspiracy theories. I really don't like when people see a real Bigfoot in every single obviously hoaxed picture or video, it doesn't lend credibility to the pro-Bigfoot side, makes them look like suckers. However, I see myself as wanting to be realistic, calling a hoax a hoax, but do want to remain unjaded in the event that such a creature exists and in the event that a real film or video is shot of it. There are arguments on either side of the P/G film, that objectively make sense.
And I don't buy the simplistic tale of the Bob H. suit. If it is a suit, it is superb. No football pads, no football helmet, no goofy suit would look THAT good, and it does look good enough to either be genuine or a magnificent hoax.
I watched King Kong (with Jessica Lang) and was surprised at how poor the costume was compared to what we see today, and compared to the subject of the Patterson film. I just can't come to the same conclusions that many people can about that film. Aside from a few small details, like the buckling at the top of the leg and the length of the heel, the thing looks so real, with good motion in the legs and upper body. It looks real. The Bob H. re-enactment suit looks SO bad. I can't see a mustache.
Reviewing this article reveals that the author is not familar with a mountain goriila or other great apes. Only humans have a protruding nose. The mustache has a clean trim line below the nose. Which great ape trims their mustache (especially the female of the species). The nose and the mustache don't rotate by the same angle when the head turns. If the author really wanted to test the mobility aspect, he would have found someone who spends a lot of time in the woods. The stride is obvious.
I couldn't read this film. kit's going too fast.
Ammobarer 3 months ago
The main thing that bothers me about this film is Why was it spliced between :41 and :42 seconds. If you look at the stump in right bottom corner it suddenly disappears, and the 'angle' that the person filming changed from an approx. 30 degree angle to approx 10 degree angle (if you plot a line from where Pattie was first seen to entering the woods and draw another line from cameraman position to Patty's line of travel) Anyone ever mention this ??
rntonp 4 months ago
@Parasite10000000 -I agree with you about attempting a hoax, and getting lucky in the process. Patterson had been called a "liar" and a "conman" by some. It's very possible that the "conman" was in the right place at the right time on that day.
Arcticfox36 5 months ago
Thanks for posting real forensic data!
montotosk 5 months ago
I believe.
crazycatlady68 6 months ago
Good vid well done.
MultiKez2010 7 months ago
I have always believed that the case for big foot will be made by the evidence and proved or disproved by the evidence. I totally respect the forensic analysis presented in your video and hope that those of a similar academic background will debate the the facts with you. It is only through the careful assembly, analysis and testing of the data that the truth will finally emerge.
fastwalker100 7 months ago
its real all right
drmrdude1965 7 months ago
It isn't what can be seen clearly by the eyes that bothers me, but what can't be seent. While the female creature does seem to have a buttocks to sit down upon, it doesn't seem to have an opening which curves up into the anus forming the crack normally needed to elimate waste out of. All primates do possess these necessary things.
MisterNifty 8 months ago
o__o'
japanah 8 months ago
@CosmicTruthify well said
jon17ist 9 months ago
@BloatedSensations
~ While RP sought publicity Gimlin didn't, avoided discussing the encounter until after RP's death. He later said he'd avoided publicity after RP & promoter Al DeAtley had broken their agreement to pay Gimlin a share of any profits generated by the film
~ RP received a letter from a man in Thailand "A Sasquatch was being held in a Buddhist monastery" RP preparing an expedition to retrieve this creature only to learn it was a hoax. RP died of Hodgkin's lymphoma in 1972
JgarfbiHoover 9 months ago
@BloatedSensations P2 con't
least1 example your hypothesis will remain unproven & go no further towards overturning the current accepted theory that no factual basis or corobborating evidence for a "cryptid" exists
* In the PGF case it's been repeatedly falsified as NOT being a "actual cryptid" NOT by the proponents as should be but by opponents of this outlandish prank that has many antecedents in the cottage hoaxing industry
^ Google Karl Popper on 'Falsifiability' in the Scientific Method
JgarfbiHoover 9 months ago
@JgarfbiHoover So, IF the film resists all such falsification, it must be seen as positive evidence arguing for the veracity of the hypothesis. Of course, that alone would not be enough to overturn current accepted scientific understanding, but science isn't made up solely of "Eureka" moments.
BloatedSensations 9 months ago
@BloatedSensations "IF the film resists all such falsification, it must be seen as positive evidence"
* The many analysis I've seen by creditible & skeptical scientists have shown specifically just the opposite
* Patterson's book previous to this prank gives us a good clue 'Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist?' was self-published in 1966. The book has been characterized as "little more than a collection of newspaper clippings laced together with Patterson's circus-poster style prose
JgarfbiHoover 9 months ago
@JgarfbiHoover "...towards overturning the current accepted theory that no factual basis or corobborating evidence for a "cryptid" exists"
There is no such "accepted theory" - You appear to be confusing the word "theory" with the words "conjecture" and/or "opinion." You can not base a "theory" on an absence of evidence - such is a logical fallacy. To do so would require a claim of omniscience. Your "theory" is that no evidence exists? I'd LOVE to hear how you'd attempt to falsify THAT.
BloatedSensations 9 months ago
@BloatedSensations "There is no such "accepted theory .... I'd LOVE to hear how you'd attempt to falsify THAT"
~ Very easily done, we'd just use anyone of your "hundred more examples of how the film could be falsified"
~ Since PGF is regarded by many as poison to anyone with a reputation as a serious scientist who uses multi-various analytical techniques it isn't surprising that the mainstream scientific community has let this floperoo fall by it's own weight .... Like in ploink !
JgarfbiHoover 9 months ago
@JgarfbiHoover "Very easily done, we'd just use anyone of your "hundred more examples of how the film could be falsified"
Impossible. As I said, if your "theory", as you have claimed, is that no evidence exists, your "theory" is impossible to falsify. It would require nothing short of omniscience to do so. I'd like you to give me one, single, specific example of how such a "theory" could be falsified. You were the one that invoked Karl Popper. So, tell me: How could your "theory" be falsified?
BloatedSensations 9 months ago
@BloatedSensations "Impossible"
You're confusing yourself w/the fact "that no evidence exists" for corroborating the PGF is fake theory by stating it "is impossible to falsify", the 2 don't follow because as I stated it isn't up to the opponent of the upstart hypothesis to disprove a negative (impossible)
For example I can state about a person by asking a Q "Did you stop beating your wife after you were released from prison on child molestation charges yes or no? Be hard to A or disprove eh?
JgarfbiHoover 9 months ago
@JgarfbiHoover "the opponent of the upstart hypothesis to disprove a negative (impossible)"
DISPROVE a negative? I'll assume you meant to say "prove" a negative. The problem with your statement is that proving the PGF fake is not proving a negative. Your task is to prove that the film IS a fraud - that's a positive. And, I've already told you how you could disprove it. I gave two specific examples, and I can provide many more, if you wish...
BloatedSensations 9 months ago
@BloatedSensations P1 "The problem with your statement" Is that you consider the PGF a positive step towards proving the existence of a "cryptid" I consider it a negative, a hoax, a charlitons prank and RP said it was so to the creator of the costume ^. So your confusion is based upon symantics, a belief system & trying to draw me into a discussion IS A BUNCH OF SILLY BULLSHIT AND YOU KNOW IT. SO AGAIN WHAT IS YOUR POINT OF DISCUSSING A PRANK, A HOAX, AND A CHARLITONS ^^ SCAM SCIENTIFICALLY?
JgarfbiHoover 9 months ago
@JgarfbiHoover "Is that you consider the PGF a positive step towards proving the existence of a "cryptid"" - That's your own assumption. And, it's an incorrect one. I've made no such claim.
BloatedSensations 9 months ago
@JgarfbiHoover "SO AGAIN WHAT IS YOUR POINT OF DISCUSSING A PRANK, A HOAX, AND A CHARLITONS ^^ SCAM SCIENTIFICALLY?"
It's you that keeps attempting to turn the conversation to the specifics of the PGF. Not me. I was merely criticizing your seemingly poor abilities with logic, reason, rationality, the intentions and purposes of science, and the application of the scientific method.
BloatedSensations 9 months ago
@JgarfbiHoover ...You, however, have thus far completely evaded my request for just one specific example regarding your "theory". You're a Popper fan, right? And, you've claimed it is an "accepted theory" that no evidence exists. So, please provide me with a single example of how that "accepted theory" might be falsified. Until then, your repeated attempts to change the subject with all of your Patterson irrelevance will be ignored. (and quite possibly after as well)
BloatedSensations 9 months ago
@BloatedSensations P2 Keynotes
^ Morris said that he sold an ape suit to Patterson via mail-order in 1967, thinking it was going to be used in what Patterson described as a "prank" After the initial sale, Morris said that Patterson telephoned him asking how to make the "shoulders more massive" Morris says he suggested that whoever wore the suit should wear wide football-type shoulder pads
^^ BH's mother (Opel) & nephew (John Miller) corroborated BH's story (they saw the ape suit in his car)
JgarfbiHoover 9 months ago
@JgarfbiHoover When you hear a Scientist say something like "No evidence for such a cryptid exists", one of three things are happening: (1) They're speaking parsimoniously, and their real meaning is simply that they are not aware of any such evidence. (2) They are engaged in non-scientific conjecture and expression of personal opinion, and have just failed to point that out. (3) They actually mean exactly what they said. In which case, they're not very bright and are very poor Scientists.
BloatedSensations 9 months ago
@BloatedSensations
~ Some yrs after the PGF's publicity, Greg Long interviewed ppl who described Patterson as a liar, a conman & sometimes worse. Pat Mason, Glen Koelling, Bob Swanson and Vilma Radford claimed Patterson never repaid loans they made to him for a bigfoot movie Roger planned
~ RP's rented expensive 16 mm camera 05/13 kept it longer than contracted & an arrest warrant was been issued for him on 10/17 to get it back. Charge dismissed after RP returned the camera in working order
JgarfbiHoover 9 months ago
@BloatedSensations "When you hear a" conman "say something like" PGF is believable evidence you have to wonder about motivation especially when ....
~ RP rents a camera with the intent purpose of capturing a 'BigFoot' on film & with in a day or so the creature "cryptid"ly obliges to the request with only a few backward thrown snears over his shoulder to the contraire
~ Bernard Heuvelmans the 'Father of Cryptozoology' expressed his opinion that the figure in the PGF contained a "Suited Human"
JgarfbiHoover 9 months ago
@CosmicTruthify You're welcome, I'm glad you enjoyed it and thanks for watching.
PostToastie 10 months ago 4
Comment removed
simpeable 8 months ago
@PostToastie Yes, and I want to congratulate you because of this impressive presentation. Everything is cristal clear..40 years after there is no suit and so far no one could imitate Patty - that magnificant creature. Many have tried & failed.. I call all sceptics & non- beliveres to see the NASI Report. They want science, this is science.
simpeable 8 months ago 2
@simpeable Right.
fretman411 5 months ago
I'll bet every one saying "fake" has never even went in the woods to look! lol, not a very convincing argument! I think I'll go with the preponderance of evidence for now. so,. most likely real! if only 1 video, photo or story is true/real/accurate,. than there you have it! BIGFOOT! of course most people don't think scientifically? they just say "fake".
SPAGHETTIMONSTER1 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Cryptozoology novel about two boys who find something strange on the beach one night see video book trailer
dltanner99 10 months ago
Anybody crying hoax has obviously never seen one. Stfu.
Astroboy1070 1 year ago
Sure fire sign of someone lending a hand to or willingly participating in a hoax is the wording in NASI "not yet been proven to be a forgery". This is of course the opposite of the Scientific Method of Inquiry when determining factuality. It's not up to anyone to 'Disprove' anything it's up to the prognosticators of this extraordinary film to prove that it's a genuine 'Bigfoot' and couldn't of been anything else. This has not been done. BTW Bob H. is still waiting to get paid for his monkey act.
JgarfbiHoover 1 year ago
@JgarfbiHoover Are you serious? The standard of the scientific method is to repeatedly attempt to falsify - or *disprove* - a developed hypothesis. Only if an hypothesis resists all attempts to disprove it, is it then said to become a formal theory. If the hypothesis is that the PGF shows an actual cryptid, then, according to the scientific method, repeated failures to disprove such should go a hell of a long way in determining its veracity.
BloatedSensations 9 months ago
@BloatedSensations P1 "Are you serious?" Yes I'm dead serious, you have it all wrong
* The default scientific community starting position for any hypothesis willing to overturn it & the understanding of human evolution excludes this PGF film as genuine & classifies it as a hoax
* Science doesn't go around trying to disprove upstart working or tenative hypothesis based upon for example PGF of a 'Suited Human'
* Falsifiability ^ comes with the posited hypothesis. If you can't falsify with at
JgarfbiHoover 9 months ago
@JgarfbiHoover "the understanding of human evolution excludes this PGF"
Science is provisional. Its conclusions are drawn solely from known data. Science adjusts its "understanding" to incorporate new data that withstands the rigors of the scientific method - not the other way around. Your quoted statement is meaningless. The PGF may be incompatible with what we currently know of primate evolution. But, to science, that, in and of itself, says NOTHING regarding the veracity of the film.
BloatedSensations 9 months ago
@BloatedSensations "Science adjusts its "understanding" to incorporate new data that withstands the rigors of the scientific method - not the other way around"
~ Correct & it's still waiting to have 1 micron of solid physical evidence to validate this "crytid"
"quoted statement is meaningless"
~ Of course it is to the braindead cult believers of hoax's that are way of returning back to humans the mystery that science has taken out of this world by explaining the once thought inexplicable.
JgarfbiHoover 9 months ago
@JgarfbiHoover "If you can't falsify with at least1 example your hypothesis will remain unproven"
The hypothesis that the PGF shows an actual, currently unidentified animal is falsifiable. If more film turns up matching the PGF that shows a human putting on the suit, the hypothesis is false. If someone unquestionably identifies a zipper - false. I could probably think of a hundred more examples of how the film could be falsified.
BloatedSensations 9 months ago
@BloatedSensations "currently unidentified animal is falsifiable"
It never was by PGF owners who pawned it off to several film companies w/exclusive rights (illegal) at the same time to get as much $ as possible before the scam was reveiled. Another sure fire sign of attempting to perpetrate a 'Bigfoot' hoax
"If film matching the PGF that shows a human putting on the suit"
Hardly imaginable since they destroyed the suit after the film was made to hide their deception WTH is the problem?
JgarfbiHoover 9 months ago
@JgarfbiHoover "Hardly imaginable since they destroyed the suit after the film was made to hide their deception WTH is the problem?"
Interesting... So, even though you advised me to Google Karl Popper, it would seem, from your response quoted above, that you really have no understating of what empirical falsification actually is, do you?
BloatedSensations 9 months ago
@BloatedSensations "that u really have no understating of what empirical falsification actually is do u?
Seeing that you just discovered what I knew long ago, I'm way ahead of the curve. Using multi-various analytical techniques, such as exploring the hoaxers past associations, allegations & charges brought against his reputation, etc. & THE FACT THAT A MONKEY SUIT WAS DESIGNED & SHIPPED TO PATTERSON BY PHILLIP MORRIS OF MORRIS COSTUMES VIA MAIL ORDER IN 1967 WHATS YOUR POINT OF EVEN ARGUING?
JgarfbiHoover 9 months ago
Well, too bad it's not fake, 63... Her legs, well, the upper body's the tall part of a Bigfoot not the legs like it is with us...
komodoman 1 year ago
It's definitely a real bigfoot. And I'M smart.
TheIMC8 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is no doubt.
bigfoothowl 1 year ago
é mentiraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
dudu2021 1 year ago
Great video, very interesting read, thank you PostToastie, bravo!
twasbrillig33 1 year ago
"After going through enormous scientific time and expense to convert the original film images into super-ultra HD images with the most sophisticated hardware and software available, some of it being assembled just for this purpose, we subjected it to the YouTube filter, which re-films the images through a slurry of translucent diarrhea, then compresses the 30 GB file down to a more manageable 30 B file."
YouTube.
Destroying film quality is our claim to fame.
rmcdaniel423 1 year ago
that thing is real,she has tits!!!!
hurtken 1 year ago
My brother and sister once found a bigfoot print then my uncle saw bigfoot in my hometown behind the church.
Ryon569 1 year ago
Good info. Believable analysis.All you need now is to catch one.
MultiChett 1 year ago
this is amazing data.
mburch1974 1 year ago
keefofus12 is mk davis's new utube channel - chek it out
trailriderresearch 1 year ago
I've had many encounters, these beings are real and they are human not ape. see my channel for esoteric details on sasquatch. great vid i havent seen this one before
trailriderresearch 1 year ago
I'M smart..and I say it's real.
TheIMC8 1 year ago
I have seen a black one in northern ontario, standing motionless in a group of black pines.
hatchi58 1 year ago
didnt sum1 already come foward stating it was a hoax?
GA040607 1 year ago
@GA040607
Yep, many people have come forward claiming to be "the brains behind the hoax". None of them are believable.
PostToastie 1 year ago 9
@PostToastie oh...are you sure they are not credible? all im saying is that its starting to say on many sites and wiki that the footage has no been debunked. Guys have apparently come foward explaining how the costume was made etc....
GA040607 1 year ago
@PostToastie
In the film you can clearly see a break in the suit when it turns. It's obvious it's a suit with two or more pieces not the standard zipper monkey suit. It looks very fake to me.
longtalltexan63 1 year ago
@PostToastie
What bullcrap! They are saying that it is over seven feet tall? Look how short it's legs are! It's more like six foot to six foot five.
longtalltexan63 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PostToastie "None of them are believable"
Let alone Patterson : Wiki 'Patterson Film'
* Patty rents expensive camera for purpose of filming a 'Bigfoot'
* Next day he films a 'Bigfoot', probability's gullible ones?
* Owner files complaint & arrest warrent issued for theft of camera, until he returns it
* Patty sells rights to multiple entitys hoping to cash in on film & rips off many backers of this hoax
* Manufacturer of suit admits shipping one to Patterson that circa .... Obvious hoax
JgarfbiHoover 1 year ago
@GA040607 yes. and sum 1 L's came forward and stated they shot Kennedy.
solerso68 1 year ago
A liar did.
TheIMC8 1 year ago
@GA040607 More than one person claims to have worn the costume, and they have changed their stories from interview to interview. Patterson and Gimlin on the other hand, have stuck by their stories, Patterson until his death in 1972, and Gimlin even to this day 43 years later.
VitalSigns1 1 year ago 3
If you understand anything about human anatomy youll see that this CANNOT be a man in a costume the upper arms are too long the foot is MADE different with the fulcrum-talus bone/ankle in the middle massive vastus lateralis-lus who would have bothered to make breasts for a costume? This thing is real they are the true hominids of the Earth our ancestors pushed them out of the temperate zones into areas uninhabitable for us
Widdowson2020 1 year ago
nice one.
tommyriantoro 1 year ago
TERRIFIC, thank you so much for this info....
For what it's worth, here is my take:
I belive this creature exists, I respect the educated disbeliefs of the non-belivers.
(FYI, there has been a similar debate for thousands of years among religons).
While the answer may not be as important as the debate, this subject has brought many people together. Keep up the hunt, the debate & the peace.
WONDERFUL job with this again.
robgnts 1 year ago
The Pacific NW has a lot of moisture, that's for sure. As for snow, there r plenty of lower elevations that are dense forest. As one would travel west towards the Pacific, chances of avoiding snow pack are greatly increased. Look at the Redwoods. These trees huge the coastline and rarely get enough snow that last for any length of time. If the creature is nomadic, it make sense to travel West in Winter and still avoid detection? Look up Patterson location and it's proximity to the pacific.
4dales 1 year ago
I will make this vidoe easy for all of you! IT'S REAL!!!!!!!!!!
bigfil31 1 year ago 20
Whats so strange if it was a unknown primate?
Remember the first Gorilla was detected in 1921.
Open your mind a bit !
mozillabytes 1 year ago
Check the story of the discovery of a hitherto unknown group of Lowland Gorillas found in the Congo in 2007...over 100,000 apes unknown to science...true fact..
joeyvader 1 year ago
@mozillabytes "The first scientific description of gorillas dates back to an article by Savage and the naturalist Jeffries Wyman in 1847 in Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History,[23][24] where Troglodytes gorilla is described, now known as the Western Gorilla. Other species of gorilla are described in the next couple of years.[8]"
Source: Wikipedia
jgrab1 1 year ago
If I wanted to Read I'd open a book.
tga2848 1 year ago
I've always enjoyed that clip - especially as a young child. However:
* Nobody can prove a negative. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
* This encounter miraculously occurred after Patterson tried to get funding to make a bigfoot film.
* The guy who sold him the suit has already talked about it as well as the fellow who wore it.
* If this is an earthling of any sort, this creature would need a substantial breeding population to remain genetically viable.
cedartree696 2 years ago
@cedartree696 Thankyou. Your last point in particular is one I've been saying for years. They are either doing alot of moving, which greatly increases thier chance of discovery or, keeping to a small population limited to ,ok, the Pacific Northwest. Inbreeding would have reared its ugly head after this many generations of iscolation, making them genetically unviable and drastically increasing thier chance of discovery.
splatterviz 1 year ago
Yep. The logistics just don't hold up. There would have to be many thousands. Also, when the snow pack settles in for the winter large mammals either hibernate or head for the lowlands because they simply cannot otherwise survive 10' of snow. When heading for the lowlands their populations become very dense because there is significantly less acreage.
Also, there is the simple issue of calories per acre required for such a large beast & thus how much land it would have to cover ea day to forage
cedartree696 1 year ago
@cedartree696 What if it was the last one or last of a few?
desertflower69 1 year ago
that was awsome thanks
goodtrick 2 years ago
People like digglyda are never going to do any real research because, like others before him/her it may shake their immovable scepticism.Research as we know is only done by those that actually want to find the truth.
Poe397 2 years ago 5
From all the information I have read I am of the opinion that if "bigfoot" does indeed exist they likey migrate.This would explain the elusive nature,and also would likey be a good survival tactic.I found this to be one the most informative clips on the subject which I have viewed.Well done!!
plopnod 2 years ago 18
Thank you, glad you liked it.
Thanks for watching.
PostToastie 2 years ago
It looks like its a female that Bigfoot.But what about maleBigfoot or young ones.Isnt there a footage of younger ones or of a male.
62denmark 1 year ago
They likey migrate?? Me likey migrate too!! Me go far away for rong time!!
joeyvader 2 years ago
@plopnod "This would explain the elusive nature"
At 7'-3 1/2" and weighing 1,957 Ib's be kinda hard to be "elusive" even in his "nature"al setting don't you think? He'd be as hungry as a bear and invading campsites on a regular basis I would imagine. As for this supposed anaysis it reminds me of intentionally faked UK photo's of Ufo's put out for analysis by scientists. One French scientist wrote a report coached in all the appropriate terms disavowing any chance of the photo's being faked BS.
JgarfbiHoover 1 year ago
jane goodall who probably understands primates better than anyone, thinks that bigfoot could exist, so we have to keep an open mind, none of us know for sure so unless they cut down all the habitat, then its pointless to be too dogmatic, one way or the other........
littlebay75 2 years ago 6
Last time im commenting too you digglyda.
even in the winter there is food, animals etc alike, 1,600-1,800 moose get by in the winter and they don't eat animals, i would tell you to get it into your head back but you can't put 10 lbs of knowledge it seems into a 5lb bowl lol
Its like flogging a beached fish lol
Bigfoot is not a Gorilla, nor is Jaws a goldfish lol
jonman701 2 years ago 4
Its funny, people have no idea how much food there is in the wild and im just talking for humans, now other animals that might have adapted too live in the woods alone the food supply could be endless even in smaller areas.
I'm not even talking about eating animals either, that just adds a ridiculous amount of food too the equation.
Its ludicrous too suggest it doesn't have enough food, what else do you think it does with its time? knitting?
I could go in depth here but that's over kill.
jonman701 2 years ago 5
because these forests are so remote there are many reasons bigfoot could survive . even the bbc nature department said that food supply and surroundings werent the issue. its extremely unlikely but not impossible that these creatures exist......
littlebay75 2 years ago 3
My opinion and common sense too me says its very real footage and when i say common sense, there are things about the Patterson film that make sense to me that other people don't notice, like how it walks and doesn't even look where its walking, if i was a man in a suit, i would do what i can too keep from tripping, plus no suit back then fits and looks that good, im not even convinced that suits back then can be made that well let alone that one was made in order to fake the film.
jonman701 2 years ago
I have seen many different views and studies on the film and i think this is one of them.
All of the studies i have seen on it point very strongly that its highly credible and it is indeed a real Sasquatch.
Patterson swore on this death bed that it was real footage of Bigfoot, i mean who lies on there death bed about anything?
To me that say's it all right there and too boot add the scientific study from all these angles too the film just adds more credibility too it.
jonman701 2 years ago
Too further push the food question, someone might make the same claim if they never saw a polar bear, saying there isn't enough berry's or grubs or some other normal bear diet food, but actually the forest has plenty of food.
Not to go back to bears again but they sometimes weight way more then 400lbs yet there number are very high compared to what Bigfoot would be and they have no problems.
Also Sasquatch doesn't buy soap or shower so he saves money there lol
jonman701 2 years ago
The forest DOES NOT have plenty of food. AND Bigfoot numbers would have to be much higher than that of Bears. Because: Bigfoot has NEVER been hunted by man and being a large primate it's reproductive capacity would almost certainly be much less than Bears. Northern forests are covered in snow in winter: Bears hibernate...what does Bigfoot do?
digglyda 2 years ago
Do the research like the rest of u have, you will be amazed.
PostToastie 2 years ago
Bears also likely eat a lot more, point made there are 20,000 polar bears in Canada alone but that sounds way more unrealistic then the idea of Bigfoot, how do they eat? they are 1600lbs, twice its size, what about other bears that are clearly over a 1000lbs living in the woods, how do you account for them? plenty of larger animals don't hibernate, does that make them less likely to be real?
Point is 1000's upon 1000's of large animals find food in the wild and Bigfood would eat a bigger verity
jonman701 2 years ago
Can't you get it into your head? Bigfoot CANNOT eat what is not there. Polar bears travel to folow the retreating/advancing ice and rely on seals as the critical item of their food chain. Other Bears HAVE to hibernate in winter because food is unavailable. ungulates and ruminants can get by on grass, moss & lichen in these areas. Bigfoot is meant to be a large, bipedal primate...bigger than Gorillas. Gorillas eat 60 pounds of rich vegetable material per day...Bigfoot would STARVE.
digglyda 2 years ago
I just finished taking a peek at your channel and you rub people the wrong way with ignorant comments very often, its clear as a bell that they can, you just think your right or trying to cause trouble, im sorry your not intelligent enough to grasp the idea of how animals gather food in the wild, obviously the concept is over your head, its not my actual job to pound it into your head even though i made it so simple a child could understand it.
explain moose, wolf packs etc
im bored lol
jonman701 2 years ago
small mammals , fish, clams, roots, berries , bark, nuts , birds eggs, young birds, lizards ,young or injured deer , crayfish etc, etc, etc.......
littlebay75 2 years ago
Those foods DO NOT exist in adequate amounts in northern forest habitat in large enough quantities to support the existence of a viable population of Bigfoot. Compare the yearly yield of Northern forest to equatorial rain-forest and you can see for yourself: Gorillas CAN survive in the Congo because there is adequate food available. Bigfoot cannot exist in North America 'cos there is NOT. If Bigfoot lived in Canada he would starve in the Winter. Simple. NO BIGFOOT!
digglyda 2 years ago
You're about dumber than a bag of hammers ain't ya diggly? How did native americans survive the winter in the northern states and Canada? How long can a primate body go without food as long as there's water? Ask the Jews that survived Nazi Germany during WW2......
try and think about what you're saying from now on.
dragnsidheblade 2 years ago 4
There is plenty of available food in the rain and snow forests of North America.
PostToastie 2 years ago
I did some quick research on the North American Science Institute. From what I've found, it appears that NASI is a "science" dressed up pro-bigfoot site. It looks to me that there may be a strong case for confirmation bias. As scientific as this thing sounds, I remain skeptical.
Besides, why doesn't the whatever it is in the film have butt cheeks? Gorillas and humans have them. This creature is supposedly between gorilla and human. So, where's the butt cheeks?
dimone 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It took Western man 60 years of searching for the Panda bear in China before proof of it's existence was discovered, verified and accepted. And a Panda is slow, brightly colored, active during daytime, and not too intelligent. Now imagine a faster, darkly colored, mostly nocturnal, and relatively intelligent creature that is probably as rare as a panda -- I'm not surprised that a living breathing Sasquatch or related species has not yet conclusively been discovered.
KungFuBlitzKrieg 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Welcome to the fray..there are those here that truly believe that every sighting, print and shred of data is all part of an alaborate mafia-esque hoax...every witness is a liar, and every print man made..good luck trying to convince them otherwise...
joeyvader 2 years ago
Interesting
Scorpion1054 2 years ago
Good info..it's some kind of being that is 7'3" tall w/ and 81.3" waist weighing almost 2,000lbs. Tired of hearing "Why is it so small?"
ZombieX13 2 years ago
bigfoot is protector of the entrances of the inner earth. there are diff types of bigfoot in different continents, snow ones in tibet called yeti, north american bigfoot, read up about the islands of guadalcanal they have some called roma which are supposedly intelligent and have vast caves with mines and lights. even the prime minister beleives in them. also read about the headless valley prostpectors who were found beheaded, legend states that an entrance of the inner earth is near that area
ogskeetdizzle 2 years ago
I'll have some of what you're smoking....
joeyvader 2 years ago
that might make some sense ogskeetdizzle
gnpivot123 2 years ago
There are over 80 planes that have crashed in the Pacific Northwest and never been found. People don't realize how massive the world is. Of course an animal could stay undetected. Even a large one.
Tralman1965 2 years ago 6
bravo !
unfortunately most people can't see beyond there television or the tips of their nose
allenst 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I did plenty of lsd in my time and I am pretty normal in a social setting. and as far as tis video his bro's said its a fake and laugh about it all the time. I cant beleive more people are not aware of this. This is coming from a person who is on the fence with this shit.I might be out of place i watched about 2 seconds of this vid read a few comments and put my 2 cents in.sorry i am really drunk.
milo555a 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
has anyone heard of the shape shifting story's? I just had some burn out druggie try to tell me that bigfoot can be any animal it chooses. OK enough already, anyone who uses LSD or any other drug on a regular basis....shut the hell up! no wonder its so hard to get government funding to research unknown plants and animals when there are complete functioning idiots dancing around telling nonsencical dragon and unicorn storys.
vf12497439 3 years ago
What year was it when the first white man found the African Gorilla?
drmassone 3 years ago
early 1900s for mountain gorillas is what i have read
tonyagrestic 3 years ago
thank you. i just want someone to get proof of these guys. we have the TEch today to do it. So people to protect them lets get proof. till then we can never sAy if they are real or not. i know there a guy who works sometimes on FBI finger print cases who claims the Bigfoot exist. but still it would take a HD camera with no blur. and remember where you took the video. so then you can take people there. Funny this is that the natives call bigfoot THE BOSS of the forrest.
drmassone 3 years ago
There was a small group of lowland gorillas discovered in the Congo last summer...just a small troup...something like 80,000 animals that had been undetected until 2008!! I have skeptics that say 'Oh well...that's the Congo!! America is ALL explored!!" BC alone has over 200,000 square km of dense uninhabited terrain!! If there are 1000 Sasquatces in BC, that gives each animal an estimated 200 square km of living space...ever tried to cover an area 200 square km.?? What if there are 200?
joeyvader 3 years ago 5
yes, i believe in the possibility of sasquatch in america.they should be here. it makes sense
tonyagrestic 3 years ago 2
um 80,000 is not small and it was more like 200,000
GermanAmerican22 2 years ago
When I said 'smal'l it was called 'sarcasm'...the figure went to 200,000...?? That's a whole lotta apes!!
joeyvader 2 years ago
Sorry i wasnt trying to be rude
GermanAmerican22 2 years ago
No worries! It boggles the mind to think of these apes eluding detection until last year...and it must be remembered that these animals were not TRYING to remain hidden....imagine large bipeds that are aware of the threat we pose to them....
joeyvader 2 years ago
In time hopefully there will be a big breakthru or discovery. Well if they are closer intellectually to us then it will make it much more difficult. But if we can prove their existence we can help preserve the environment and help protect these Creatures
GermanAmerican22 2 years ago
true but this is truely a special creature imo. it's at the top of the pyramid of cryptozoology
allenst 2 years ago
They weren't discovered. Just nobody had bothered or thought to look for them there. There are good maps for that region of the Congo but it's 50 miles from the nearest road. Hunters told researchers that there were Gorillas there and when the research team went to investigate: Hey presto! Gorillas.
It's easy for 50,000 Bigfoot to stay hidden simply because they DO NOT exist. Ah, Bigfoot must be really secretive, elusive and a master at avoiding contact? Tell me...what does Bigfoot eat?
digglyda 2 years ago
They do not exist...you have made your mind up already...therefore, they would eat nothing...
joeyvader 2 years ago
So they weren't discovered...the team went in and...didn't discover them...what would I use for lack of a better term? The dictionary defines 'discover' as follows--"to see, get knowledge of, learn of, find, or find out; gain sight or knowledge of (something previously unseen or unknown)". Could the term 'discover' be any MORE appropriate?? Hear that Post? They weren't discovered...it's just that nobody knew they were there..!!
joeyvader 2 years ago
I got a good chuckle out of that, too, but to tell you the truth, I was trying to figure out what the heck is going on in Hardin, Montana with the American Police Force.
PostToastie 2 years ago
You could use: 'located', 'identified', 'confirmed' or even 'found' more aptly in this instance rather than 'discovered'. They WERE NOT "discovered". Local tribesmen knew they were there as did hunters/poachers who revealed their location to the naturalists/scientists who went there and "discovered" them. These Gorillas have no relevance to the search for Bigfoot. Gorillas are very shy, elusive and wary of contact with humans BUT they are relatively easy to track and study once found.
digglyda 2 years ago
...(cont) However, Bigfoot it seems must be a master of disguise and evasiveness beyond anything yet seen in a large mammal, AND a biped at that. The notion of a creature like Bigfoot existing on the North American continent is ridiculous. It simply is not possible that a large enough population of Bigfoots exists without leaving EVIDENCE of it's existence. Nobody can "discover" what is not there. Also nobody can disprove a negative either.
digglyda 2 years ago
Good thing there is plenty of EVIDENCE of their existence on the North American Continent.
PostToastie 2 years ago
Evidence will be an example of a living creature or the body of a dead one. If 'you' or 'they' cannot provide either then any claims to Bigfoots existence remain unfounded. Burden of proof lies with those making the claim...PROVE Bigfoot exists. Men in suits IS NOT proof. Pattersons film is a man in a suit...how deluded can people be that they are willing to believe in the Patterson hoax? The creature Patterson/Gimlin desscribed was suprised at a distance of 25 feet or so...and it ambled off?..
digglyda 2 years ago
difflyda, please do your research before you spout nonsense. The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization would be a good place to start.
PostToastie 2 years ago
Compared to the Congo...the North american continent is a desert in terms of food supply for 4 to 6 months of each year. Bears hibernate. The only other sizeable predator, the wolf, has to follow herds of game as they migrate to adequate food resources. What does Bigfoot do? How does it live? It IS a simple question. Does Bigfoot hibernate? (ridiculous) does it migrate (ridiculous) each year AND STILL manage to avoid contact with man? NOTHING I have said is nonsense. Answer my questions please?
digglyda 2 years ago
In order for you to answer your own questions you will have to do much research, besides the BFRO, you can do an internet search, etc., but you will have to do quite a bit of reading on many different sites to find the answers to all of your questions. The answers are there for you, though, if you are willing to put forth the effort to find them. No-one is going to do it for you.
PostToastie 2 years ago
The BFRO is a haven for naive, ill-educated, untraveled and unwordly individuals who choose to believe in a creature called "Bigfoot" simply because it excites their imagination. Please tell me how Bigfoot meets it's dietary needs all year round in it's supposed habitat? Simple question...answer it please? What does Bigfoot eat?
digglyda 2 years ago
What?? You call 'evidence' hundreds and hundreds of sightings for over 200+ years?? All liars and hoaxes! The footprints? COME ON!! Those are all made by the same hoaxers, that, for 200+ years have been jumping out in fur suits (at the risk of being shot and killed) to walk in front of people...there just ISN'T enough room in BCs 275,000 square miles of dense forest to hide such a species...
joeyvader 2 years ago
200 years?! The native americans are the only providers of 'evidence' over that time period...AND they record "Bigfoot" as a mythical creature as opposed to a real one. There have been Bigfoot sightings in more than 40 US states over the past 50 years. Are you suggesting that Bigfoot exists over that range of area? They ARE just that: Liars & hoaxers. Simple. There is no such creature simply because habitat & food soes not exist in adequate amount to sustain a viable pop' of such creatues.
digglyda 2 years ago
Wolves are not migratory animals.
PostToastie 2 years ago
No, but they do have to travel within their home territory which might involve considerable distances AND many wolf-packs are reliant upon the availability of migratory prey species such as Caaribou...which they will follow on their migration.
digglyda 2 years ago
Footprints? I've seen casts of 3, 4, AND 5 toed animals purported to be 'Bigfoot'. Are they all genuine? All these people armed with cameras but never one with a large calibre rifle? Why no dead Bigfoot yet? There is room in BC's 275,000 sq miles to hide a population...JUST NOT FOOD for it. What does Bigfoot eat in BC's forest. Mainly coniferous forest...there is not adequate food supply all year round. Are you saying that Bigfoot hibernates?
digglyda 2 years ago
Why do you need to know what bigfoot eat?
PostToastie 2 years ago
The biggest single flaw in any argument about the existence of Bigfoot is: "what does Bigfoot eat?" You seem unable to offer me any suggestion as to what food supply a population of 6-7 foot tall, 400 pound beipedal primates would exist on. Tell me what you think Bigfoot lives on? A full grown Gorilla will eat about 60 pounds of vegetable diet each day. NO SUCH food supply exists in North American forest. Bigfoot does not exist because it cannot in the suggested habitat. The food IS NOT there.
digglyda 2 years ago
To diggalyda : Not to rude, but your assertions are flawed, have you ever seen how big cows/bulls get (1000-2000 pounds) and all the eat mainly is grass and straw! the sasquatch has a wide range of roots,grasses,barks,and folage to chose from, not to mention the bugs,grubs,and small and even large animals it could eat (i.e deer, rabbit, squirrell,etc...) these animals probably eat vegitation during summer months and hunt and consume small game in winter month,or cold climate areas.
mykidsdad36 2 years ago 3
Most ungulates and ruminants do nothing but eat all day long because the calorific value of their diet is very poor AND many have to migrate to reach available food supplies. Don't you get it? There simply is not adequate food supply in Northern forest habitat to support the existence of a viable population of an animal like Bigfoot. The food is just not there in adequate amounts. 20-40% of Bears die each year 'cos of lack of food AND they HAVE to hibernate. Bigfoot DOES NOT EXIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
digglyda 2 years ago
There is plenty of food out there for bigfoot, high calorie foods, even, you may want to research that a bit so you don't continue to look like a fool.
PostToastie 2 years ago 8
Oh NO!! He's right!! We are all wrong!!!!
joeyvader 2 years ago
@digglyda get a life and stop being so quick to make that obviously wrong conclusion.
Airsoftman67 1 year ago
@digglyda Wrong ! I have seen this animal eat tree bark! Along with dear, dogs, and rabbit, there is plenty of food, I have with witnesses seen this animal within 36 inches. I know it 's real.I don't need the Patty film to convince me. The one I saw was white! The friends with me said the animal was a werewolf because this animal ran away on two feet, then to all fours! 30 miles outside of Cleveland OH near the metro- parks . I was once like you , and I didn't believe until that day I saw it!
phatdic11 1 year ago
You have been within 3 feet of a Sasquatch have you...how did you manage to do this, considering they are rarely seen at all, let alone within 3 feet of a human...with many witnesses..let me guess...camera jammed?...or are they afraid around cameras and won't come out if a camera is present...or...I know...you don't want to divulge their location in order to protect them...
joeyvader 1 year ago
@phatdic11 Which of the metroparks was it in? Was it shawnee hills or sleepy hollow or what? Some of them are very forested with rivers. Thanks for watching.
PostToastie 1 year ago
@PostToastie what was it like when you saw it. were you sacred did you try and film it. this is so interesting
thehunterman12345678 1 year ago
@thehunterman12345678 You got the wrong guy,
get ahold of old phatdic, he claims to have seen at least one.
PostToastie 1 year ago
@phatdic11 you've seen him?
Filmaker25 1 year ago
@Filmaker25 Yes I have! My brother was just attacked, or a simulated attack just 4 weeks ago! While throwing back a few , he decided to Bar B Q late night one night out in the country ,and was Intimidated by one of these creatures! The creature wanted the food! They are highly intelligent! They don't mean man any harm. You guys wonder why you cant find one? Its because you refuse to believe that God could create such a monster. I got news for you: Look in the mirror !
phatdic11 1 year ago
@digglyda this might be one of the dumbest comments Ive ever seen on youtube. Where in God's name did you get your information about 20-40% of bears die each year because of lack of food? I guess that explains why the Wisconsin state record bear, 738 lbs. was just shot a few weeks ago huh? Or that most states bear populations are FLOURISHING right now? Or why mountain lions are migrating east and now in Wisconsin because of the abundance of food? Do some research before you make up bullshit
usmcgunner58 1 year ago
I must admit the Freeman video gives me pause, because the creature is very massive. For the most part the jury is still out for me and I don't give it the attention I do the PGF. I wish Freeman had stayed silent, hoax or no. Most people don't take it serious because of his accent. If it was a hoax then it would be more believable as a result, or if it is real then few will believe it all because he has a funny way of talking, that is sad.
40milesband 3 years ago
Why is Freeman a joke? Just because he may've been a dubious guy, doesn't make his video fake. It's just too good like PGF, how could a hillbilly pull off something like that? Always keep in mind, these creatures EXIST, therefore his video just might be real. My hunch says real, anyhow. Memorial Day too IMO, and definitely Marble Mountain, but the jury's still out on Snow walker and Redwoods, I'm not totally convinced they're fakes. I need solid proof from the people who made it them.
komodoman 3 years ago
I think it's simple; they are real or they are fake. certainly SOME are fakes, but the basic premise is very easy, they exist or they don't. If they don't, then there have been some very good hoaxes, kudos to them! Patty is the best of all. But if they are real, one must separate the hoaxes from the real sightings and prints. How to do that? If we can't KNOW yet, then we have to sort the evidence and make calls on each case. How likely is each to be real or fake. Patty, being the best, is hard.
tontar 3 years ago 2
It's good to keep an open mind...I understand what you mean by believers believing all of the Bigfoot images cought on film. Freeman's footage is a joke...the Snow-walker footage is terrible...the Memorial day footage is crap...the Redwoods footage is laughable...to me the Patterson footage has, and alwyas will, stand the test of time. It's just too perfect.
joeyvader 3 years ago
I see the film and it looks very human, and at the same time not human. Bigfootforums has a section trying to recreate it as a costume, and it might fit, and might not fit, but to get it to fit as a costume seems difficult with the proportions. That it is not so obviously a suit, and that it is so realistic, so natural, makes me wonder.If it's a suit, it's not as described by Bob H. far more elaborate than that. Very well done. Which makes me wonder even more. I'm fine with it at only 6 ft. tall
tontar 3 years ago
What!!??? You don't believe Bob H's 'football helmet' story!!?? How about how he explained the muscle movement seen in the thighs, as his keys in his pocket??!! RIOT!!
joeyvader 3 years ago
I hate conspiracy theories. I really don't like when people see a real Bigfoot in every single obviously hoaxed picture or video, it doesn't lend credibility to the pro-Bigfoot side, makes them look like suckers. However, I see myself as wanting to be realistic, calling a hoax a hoax, but do want to remain unjaded in the event that such a creature exists and in the event that a real film or video is shot of it. There are arguments on either side of the P/G film, that objectively make sense.
tontar 3 years ago
I believe it's real too.
Ecksntrick8 3 years ago
And I don't buy the simplistic tale of the Bob H. suit. If it is a suit, it is superb. No football pads, no football helmet, no goofy suit would look THAT good, and it does look good enough to either be genuine or a magnificent hoax.
tontar 3 years ago 3
I watched King Kong (with Jessica Lang) and was surprised at how poor the costume was compared to what we see today, and compared to the subject of the Patterson film. I just can't come to the same conclusions that many people can about that film. Aside from a few small details, like the buckling at the top of the leg and the length of the heel, the thing looks so real, with good motion in the legs and upper body. It looks real. The Bob H. re-enactment suit looks SO bad. I can't see a mustache.
tontar 3 years ago
Reviewing this article reveals that the author is not familar with a mountain goriila or other great apes. Only humans have a protruding nose. The mustache has a clean trim line below the nose. Which great ape trims their mustache (especially the female of the species). The nose and the mustache don't rotate by the same angle when the head turns. If the author really wanted to test the mobility aspect, he would have found someone who spends a lot of time in the woods. The stride is obvious.
DumDDumDum 3 years ago