Sasquatch Coffee


Taking A New Look: Patterson-Gimlin Footage At 44

Posted by: Loren Coleman on October 20th, 2011

Every now and then, it certainly is good to step back, infuse fresh blood into an investigation, and take a new look. Today, on the 44th anniversary of the capturing of the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot footage in northern California, let me share just such a virgin view of the film.

Kevin Buresh has been analyzing the footage intensively for the last five years to see if he could view original items previously overlooked or not noted.

Who is this investigator? Buresh is 53, lives south of Boston and is an electronic technician. While he has been posting on the BFF and Jref under the username “SweatyYeti,” in general, his insights have never been shared this comprehensively. He recently became a member of the Northern Sasquatch Research Society, based in the Whitehall, New York area.

Buresh writes, in his preliminary notes, the following (he has further insights about each finding among this sampling):

“Just in the last few months and weeks, I’ve discovered some new details, such as mouth/eyebrow movement, and independent movement of the right and left sides of Patty’s buttocks (gluteus maximus and gluteus medius muscles). The main reason I’ve been able to find these is because of a special version/copy of the film that I received from Bill Munns, called ‘Copy 8′. Several months ago, Bill sent me a CD-Rom with the ‘Copy 8′ version and I’ve been spending a lot of time looking over the frames, and putting together short animated-gifs to find any movements on Patty that I can. The ‘Copy 8′ version has a better level of clarity than the Legend Meets Science version, which is the most commonly used version, for analysis.”

“Here are a few animations…

“This 2-frame animated-gif shows, very clearly, independent movement of the left and right ‘buttocks cheeks.’”

Patterson/Gimlin Film Images

Patterson/Gimlin Film Images

“In these 3 frames….you can see a distinct change in the shape of the dark recessed area of the eye; it shrinks in the frame where Patty’s cheek is first lit-up by the direct sunlight, but then increases in size again with that same triangular shape as in the first frame.”

“Here is an animation showing some ‘mouth movement’ (as Patty is turning away from looking at Roger Patterson).”

Patterson/Gimlin Film Images

“Between the first and second frames, the lower-jaw appears to move downwards, then the mouth extends forward, and then closes. Shown are just the first two frames.”

Patterson/Gimlin Film Images

This animation shows ‘eyebrow movement’…..Patty’s right eyebrow lowers, as her face first turns into the bright sunlight…(seen on the upper facial cheek)…

Patterson/Gimlin Film Images

“Another version of the gif…”

Patterson/Gimlin Film Images

“Concerning the length and proportion of Patty’s arms: Patty’s elbow-joint appears exceptionally low, on the arm, compared to an average human’s.”

Patterson/Gimlin Film Images

“This 2-frame animation uses Cibachrome images (frames 350 and 352), and shows apparent movement of the lips.”

Patterson/Gimlin Film Images

“The following goes along with the image of the ‘sharp-edged shadow’ on the back of Patty’s arm. It shows that Patty’s arm does indeed bend, at that point, when she swings her arm backwards.”
Patterson/Gimlin Film Images

“This Cibachrome image shows a detail which supports this apparent ‘low elbow-joint’ location. There is a sharply-edged shadow on the back of Patty’s arm, which appears to be due to a protruding elbow-joint and matches the look of the gorilla’s protruding elbow. Note the relatively short forearm…and the exceptionally long upper-arm. The proportion is very different from a human’s arm.”

Patterson/Gimlin Film Images

Loren Coleman – has written 5491 posts on this site.
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct). Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013.


70 Responses to “Taking A New Look: Patterson-Gimlin Footage At 44”

  1. BUKWASBOO responds:

    Can there REALLY be any more doubt that this is the real thing ? nice work !.

  2. scaryeyes responds:

    I hate to be a party pooper on Patty’s birthday, but quite honestly, I’m not seeing it. The whole face is a mess of splotchy light and shadow, you can see anything you want there if you look for long enough. Stuff like the butt cheeks and the elbow joint could just as easily be explained by the movements of a real human inside a suit. The length of the arms is also easily accounted for if you imagine the guy in the suit is wearing football shoulder pads (as the rumour goes), meaning his real shoulder actually starts below what appears to be Patty’s shoulder.

  3. alanrb responds:

    I have always been pretty impressed with the movement of the muscle groups. Quadriceps, triceps, and in one if the images above that thin bit of flesh where the arm and chest meet, it would need to be a remarkable suite.

  4. dharkheart responds:

    The flexing of the calf muscle is exceptional, too.

  5. Drew responds:

    In the first image, what movement is THAT right in front of the eyebrow?
    It looks like some growth or ballooning of the face.

  6. MattBille responds:

    I too am very reluctant to overinterpret the blobs of light and shadow on an image 1.8mm high blown up countless times. But the biggest problem I have with declaring it authentic is the lack of anything as impressive for the last 44 years. Sure, there are still long odds against a close-range encounter with a camera-armed non-panicking human, but those odds are a heck of a lot better in the camcorder/cell phone age than they were in the days of the P-G encounter. I think I’ve looked at everything posted on Cryptomundo without once being as impressed as I am by P-G, which hints to me that P-G is a fluke in the sense of being an exceptionally convincing fake.

  7. William Robert Hancock via Facebook responds:

    The location of the elbow joint vs. that of a human being is quite telling. I have always thought this. Also, Jeff Meldrum has compared similar “gait” photos of Patty vs. Bob “Erroneous” Heironimus and the knee joint positions don’t work either. The thigh-to-knee lenths and then shinbone lengths don’t really sqaure up to human ratios. The “suit” screamers never seem to “get” this little predicament. What happened? Did the “actor” have complex radical surgery to rearrange all his joint locations and bone lengths before he donned the “costume”?

  8. William Robert Hancock via Facebook responds:

    Make that “SQUARE” up, not “sqaure” up. Computer browser gremlins strike again!

  9. kanati responds:

    First thing I noticed about the first image wasn’t the buttocks movement but that the toes on the right foot appear to curl upwards as it steps forward. I’m in the same boat with the blobs of light and shadow for the most part though. Too much can be read into just about anything.

  10. whiteriverfisherman responds:

    Mattbille has a good point and I respect it because the conclusion is based on reality and not beliefs. The question is a good one, why just this one film over a 44 year time span. I cannot answer that.
    I base my conclusions of the PG film on reality as well. I have watched almost every version out there at least 20 times and to me the single thing that stands out is the fur. I am an avid hunter and have spent almost my entire life outside. Back in the 70’s we didn’t have video games and movies on demand, internet or email. So we played outside in the woods for fun. This love for the outdoors stayed with me to this day. Therefore I think I have a good eye for wild animals. In my opinion Patty’s fur looks like it should, like a living animal’s pelt. The shades are darker where the head hair meets the shoulders, the small of the back has the right look. The way the fur reacts to the sun light is perfect. There is an obvious part and indention along the spine ext. Based on other hair covered critters I think Patty is just that, another critter.
    If Mattbille is correct and this is an exceptionally convincing fake, where is the suit or versions of the suit? Why aren’t there other movie critters with similar perfectly made fur? Anyone talented enough to make a suit that good these days would be worth many millions of dollars to holly wood producers let alone 1967. If I could find just one flaw in the fur that would be the end for me, I would be convinced it’s a fake but I cannot find any such flaw. Therefore I cannot call Patty a fake. She looks like a living breathing hair covered animal. To this day no one has been able to create a fake animal that looks exactly like a real animal. They can’t even do it with computer generated animation! No, until I see some real proof otherwise patty’s fur has me convinced she is or by now was a living breathing critter. Do I have proof, nope, just an educated opinion based on years of observation of wild fur covered critters.

  11. SweatyYeti responds:

    Thank you Loren, and Craig, for posting these images. They do show some significant movements on Patty’s face and buttocks. The calf muscle movement (contraction) is highly significant, too…as dharkheart pointed out. I’d like to see someone demonstrate ‘padded calves’ contracting like Patty’s do.
    One thing I didn’t mention to Loren in my email, yesterday…is that I’ve found more significant ‘mouth movement’ in a couple of frames…which I haven’t posted anywhere…..yet.
    As for scaryeye’s comment…”Stuff like the butt cheeks and the elbow joint could just as easily be explained by the movements of a real human inside a suit”….it’s a LOT easier to “explain” than it is to “demonstrate”….isn’t it? 44 years….and counting….waiting for the “easy to replicate” suit.

  12. LobsterBoy responds:

    One thing that has always bothered me about the PG film subject is the odd looking “line” across the upper thigh that gives the impression it is wearing shorts. I have never heard any of the film analysts mention it, and it looks very suspicious. This feature is especially visible during the fed turning sequence.
    While the film is a real mystery, it is essentially of no real evidentiary value as there is no type specimen to compare it to that would allow for a meaningful comparison. In the end, I find the film puzzling and haunting but inconclusive.

  13. scaryeyes responds:

    @ SweatyYeti I didn’t say the suit was “easy to replicate” so I’m not sure why you put that in quotes and attributed it to me. On the contrary, I think it’s an extremely good suit, and a lot of time and money probably went into it. As for 44 years and counting, I’m with MattBillie on this, I’m afraid – I think it’s equally damning that in 44 years we’ve never had another film or photograph that even comes close to this one. If these creatures really are out there, a the feat of acquiring a half-decent piece of footage ought to be replicable too.

  14. deadfoot responds:

    I wonder if Patty is still alive. It would be interesting to know if she remembers that fateful day, and if anything changed for her after that brush with those other “bipeds”. :D

  15. DWA responds:

    MattBille:

    I understand your problem with P/G. But I’m not surprised that there hasn’t been a dupe in 44 years. To me, that speaks more to genuineness than to fakery.

    As whiteriverfisherman points out, the absence of any artifact of this alleged filming – and no legitimate claimant, who as he says would have been one of the most sought-after talents in film – is a far greater mystery, far harder to explain, than this simply being an animal that only one party – ever – devoted the time to tracking to have the luck fall their way, but many, many people attest to having seen. Bill Munns’s research is that of a man who seems to know more than enough about this to know how hard it would be to do or to conceal. His conclusions as to required process point firmly away from a fake, although he does not say that in that many words. To go to all this work – that likely would not have been possible, and even if so prohibitively expensive for the product generated – and leave no trace? For 44 years?

    Artifacts of Patty’s passage jibe with much other evidence. Scientific speculations based on the film square with analysis of both trackways and the Skookum cast. Where are all these suits? All these feet? All this equipment? All these hoaxers? They sure aren’t on Youtube. The sighting literature makes clear that what you are seeing on Youtube are people in suits. All one has to do is read the reports, and see the videos. Two different phenomena, the latter completely understandable.

    When Patty squares with the sightings which square with the scientific speculation which squares with the trackways which….it’s cross-check after cross-check after counter-cross-check, by qualified scientists. All coming back, “check.”

    Anyone who has tried to film an elusive wild animal knows that, if you don’t devote at minimum the time and effort Patterson and Gimlin did – and no one else has for this species – you don’t, period. The way the topic is treated by the society, i.e., you are a nut if you try, practically prohibits it.

    If I had to (HAD to, mark now) bet everything I possessed on the legitimacy of P/G, I wouldn’t hesiitate. Not for a second.

    That’s the scientist in me talking.

  16. Robert Michaels via Facebook responds:

    Believe it or not , thats the Question. A live Big Foot would be worth millions.

  17. RandyS responds:

    One important point to remember in this age of camera phones and video recorders (both tape and digital) is that none of those readily available devices will ever capture as much detail as good old film. 72 dpi equipment simply cannot compete with the millions-of-particles emulsion on a piece of film.

    While this difference in technology doesn’t actually point to the authenticity of the Patterson-Gimlin film (though I personally think the evidence points to it being authentic), it could go a long way toward explaining why we get so many “blobsquatches” these days. Unlike what they show you on the TV cop shows, there is no magic “enhance” button that can blow-up a 72 dot per inch image into anything more than a bunch of meaningless dots.

  18. SweatyYeti responds:

    scaryeyes….you misunderstood my statement. I put “easy to replicate” in quotations, in reference to what skeptics, in general, say about Patty. Earlier in my post…I quoted your words exactly as you wrote them.
    But, ‘quotation marks’ aside…there is no essential difference between saying that ‘Patty’s features are easy to explain as a suit’…and saying…”Patty’s features are easy to replicate with a suit”. Is there??

  19. watn6789 responds:

    How many of you believe this a possible case of Hypertrichosis or so called wherewolf syndrone? There are a number of tales referring to ‘them’ speaking a certain type of dialect… That of course would lead ‘them’ to be a tribe or race and not a new “type” of animal.

  20. AreWeThereYeti responds:

    @ kanati: regarding “…the toes on the right foot appear to curl upwards as it steps forward.”

    I would ask you to take another look at the animation you referenced. The upward-curled toes are actually the FIRST image of the pair – not the second; i.e. the toes are visible as the foot descends toward the ground – not rises – and then no longer seen in the consecutive image.

    Also note that the the gorilla, pictured in the “Cibachrome image” comparison at the end of the post, appears to hold its toes in a similar manner.

    Finally, consider how the toes of an unshod human foot flex slightly upward as the heel strikes the ground during a heel-toe stride.

    I submit the upward-curled toes represent exactly what one would expect from the relatively flat-footed gait usually attributed to Patty & her ilk.

    P.S. BTW kanati, I do agree with you – and others – that we should be cautious when making judgments based upon extreme magnification of the source material – the aforementioned “balloon artifact,” noted by Drew, is a good example.

    P.P.S. However, with that said, I still consider the P/G footage to be the most compelling piece of visual evidence, to date, for the existence of Sasquatch – just, let’s not over-sell it is all! :)

  21. William responds:

    There are pros and cons to both stances on this film. The pro’s have been mentioned already and I agree with them. However there are also a lot of cons not mentioned:

    Patterson had a crew of fellow cowboys including Gimlin and Heronomous lined up to make a fictional film about finding and tracking a sasquatch. There is pictorial evidence of this in Argosy Mag folder. It is quite possible he did have a suit made for the film and Heronomous was going to or did wear it at some point. He in fact passed a lie detector test on a tv show when asked that very question. Gimlin has never subjected his version to a polygraph but reportedly Roger Patterson did and also passed. Also, it has been theorized that since Patterson couldn’t get financial backing for his fictional film he faked “Patty” in a desparate attempt to make money as he was dying of cancer. This all seems possible. Yet if there was such a suit (and indeed Heronimous walks a lot like the film subject) why go to all the trouble to fabricate breasts and a head with a mouth that opens which is only seen with today’s sophisticated analysis? There are a lot of aspects on both sides that are difficult to reconcile.

  22. Fred123 responds:

    I don’t see it, I didn’t see the zipper that the skeptics were pointing to a few years ago either. I don’t think that endlessly rehashing a blurry film that’s well on it’s way to being a half century year old is ever going to change the balance here. If you want to see muscle movement, you’ll see muscle movement, if you want to see a zipper, you’ll see a zipper.

  23. scaryeyes responds:

    “But, ‘quotation marks’ aside…there is no essential difference between saying that ‘Patty’s features are easy to explain as a suit’…and saying…”Patty’s features are easy to replicate with a suit”. Is there??”

    Yes, actually there is quite a considerable semantic and practical difference between those two statements. And if we’re being pedantic, I did not say “Patty’s features are easy to explain as a suit”, I said that one specific feature – the apparently abnormal length of the arms – is easily accounted for if the person is wearing football shoulder pads which would give a misleading impression of where his true arm begins inside the suit. As I’m sure you’re aware, Bob Heironimus – who claims to be the person inside the suit – did indeed claim that he was wearing shoulder pads. I’m not saying that’s necessarily true; I’m aware I may not come across like this, but I am very open-minded about this film. However, I think it’s both disingenuous and unscientific not to acknowledge alternative explanations or reasonable doubt – and to strawman your opponants by misrepresenting their points instead of answering them.

  24. red_pill_junkie responds:

    In this the 44th anniversary, we thank Kevin for these lovely GIF(t)s ;)

  25. Kopite responds:

    Sweaty Yeti has done stellar work here. It’s my opinion that the ‘discovery’ of the very low elbow joint and short forearms is of crucial importance. The arm bends at this elbow joint and the fingers curl.

    The skeptical response that it’s just padding around the shoulder making the arms appear long is nonsense, quite frankly. The hands end low down on the subject. These would have to be arm extensions if it was a suit, yet arm extensions would make the forearm look longer, not shorter and its virtually impossible to make a fake elbow joint lower than the real elbow joint and then bend the arm at the fake elbow joint in a perfectly natural movement. I would say it can’t be done, especially not 44 years ago.

    With all the padding and the extensions any suited actor would have to be wearing to pull off being Patty its a wonder he could have moved at all, nevermind move with the fluid, perfectly natural looking and at ease manner of the locomotion clearly evident in the footage.

    Patty = 100% sasquatch.

  26. Kopite responds:

    LobsterBoy wrote:

    “””One thing that has always bothered me about the PG film subject is the odd looking “line” across the upper thigh that gives the impression it is wearing shorts. I have never heard any of the film analysts mention it, and it looks very suspicious.””

    LobsterBoy,

    I’ve seen plenty of pictures of gorillas with similar odd looking lines all over their bodies. Some pictures in particular have far stranger looking lines than anything seen on Patty. One picture of a gorilla I have seen has an almost perfect rectangle shaped patch of fur on it’s lower abdomen that looks for all the world like a piece of fake fur patched on to cover up a hole………yet it’s a real fur on a real gorilla.

  27. sasquatch responds:

    Lobsterboy, that line on the upper thigh USED to bother me too, until I realized that if you watch her arm swing during her walk cycle. Her hand and most likely the thumb continues to strafe past that spot continuously.It just always must crease that area like parting your hair.
    To me that actually adds credibility to the film because some fakers would probably not think of that or be wearing a suit long enough to
    have wear marks anywhere before they did a shoot.
    In general this footage has always said: real animal. I’ve often wondered if some of those who call it fake would have the nerve to run right up to that thing and yank on its’ hair/fur? Think about it next time you watch it. Roger wouldn’t even been as brave but for the knowledge of Gimlin standing by with his Winchester.

  28. SweatyYeti responds:

    Regarding Drew’s comment…”In the first image, what movement is THAT right in front of the eyebrow? It looks like some growth or ballooning of the face.”…
    …If you’re referring to the very first animation, Drew….that dark patch in front of Patty’s head is just part of the background foliage. It’s not an example of ‘ballooning’, or any other kind of distortion/artifact, from enlarging an image.

    Regarding Patty’s ‘arm proportion’….(lower-arm -to- upper-arm)….I’ve done some comparative measurements, and a human’s arm tends to run at about 140%. The lower-arm (forearm + hand) is approximately 1.4 times longer than the upper-arm.
    Patty’s ‘arm proportion’ measures approximately 100%. The lower-arm is approximately 1.0-1.05 times longer than the upper-arm. They’re very close to equal, in length.
    I’m still working on getting as precise numbers, as I can…for Patty’s upper and lower arms.

    But, the difference in ‘arm proportion’ between Patty…and a ‘man-in-a-Patty-suit’ would be even greater….if the person in the suit was wearing ‘hand extensions’. Any extension on the lower-arm would result in the proportion being even more heavily weighted towards the lower-arm…..it would have to be greater than 140%.
    The resultant proportion wouldn’t be anywhere near Patty’s 100-105%. These numbers are a HUGE problem for the ‘suit’ theory.

  29. DWA responds:

    The subtly but distinctly non-human proportions of the figure are the critical argument against a fake, and the primary reason we are still talking about this, and will be until long after the sasquatch is confirmed.

    There has never been a shred of evidence of a fake. Nothing about Patterson’s character, preparations for a fictional film, or anything else that’s been brought up questioning the film’s veracity has any relevance to P/G at all. If I said, I wish I could blow up Beijing by pushing a button, I really doubt I’d be the primary suspect in a nuclear attack on the PRC. All questions cut to this issue:

    Did Patterson have, or have access to, the technical sophistication needed to pull this off?

    He didn’t. End of discussion.

    We could have confirmed this animal over 40 years ago. Or, if it was a fake, found that out just about as fast. Shoddy, inexcusable science is the reason that we didn’t.

  30. LobsterBoy responds:

    Good points folks. I would like to mention that as an illustrator and sculptor the anatomy of the film subject is exceptional. This is one of the reasons I find the film haunting. I dont know what Roger Patterson filmed. Like everyone here, I would be absolutely thrilled by a breakthrough discovery. But I agree with John Bindernagel….. It’s time to set The PG film aside and continue to investigate from a fresh vantage point.

  31. TimmyRyan65 responds:

    I still call BS. Roger Patterson’s background leading up to his ‘stumbling’ unto the greatest discovery in biology is enough alone to discard this. He did one hell of a hoax though and his film is right up there with the Zepruder film as THE MOST analyzed film in history. The Patterson Film is right up there with the Shroud of Turin! Both amazing hoaxes and works of art. Both also share the same battle The Skeptics VS The Faithful and no one in between!

  32. DWA responds:

    TimmyRyan65: It’s “Zapruder.”

    And your post is no closer to correct.

    1. That it’s been as you agree the most analyzed film in history – and stilll jury out – should shout BS to your opinion, right there.

    2. The figure isn’t human. The technology to get a human into that non-human figure and get a walk like that doesn’t exist now much less in 1967. [Go back and read the blog and comments again.]

    3. Patterson’s background points firmly away from a fake; he lacked the required sophistication to do it.

    4. He didn’t “stumble” onto this. If a modern Bigfooter made the discovery, that would be “stumbling.” This is, remember, the only Bigfoot expedition in history. Nobody else has devoted the time nor the preparation that Patterson did to getting what Patterson got. That’s why no one else has gotten it. Field trips don’t get the prize. The only Bigfoot expedition in history got it.

    Period. If you have any money to bet, and for some reason wanted to bet it on this, here’s the best piece of advice you’ll get: bet it’s real.

    To bet otherwise is naive. DON’T REPLY TO THIS POST. Just read up.

  33. Pat Beaton responds:

    Kevin,

    Congratulations an nice work !

    If I might address the suggested shoulder pads, there are two quick points to suggest there are no shoulder pads in my opinion:

    1- The distance between armpit and top of shoulder is natural in my opinion, that distance increases with shoulder pads;

    2- Shoulder pads will fill in the area between the shoulder blades, they run across the top of shoulders. There is a clear visual depression between the shoulder blades of the sasquatch filmed, suggesting a perfectly natural (and similar to ours) structure to this area. The median furrow/line of the spine also runs naturally up the back an is not interrupted by anything, shoulder pads again would interupt this perfectly natural feature.

    Regarding the line across thigh, I don’t believe the hand/fingers actually touch the thigh, my opinion, based on prior an following frames, the arm/hands are situated out an away from the subjects body (note shadow visible caused by arm, its width increases the lower it is, suggesting the distance between arm an body increases an hand is further away than ). The hand passing the leg coincides with the subjects right leg bearing its body wieght, and that line across thigh becomes more noticeable do to muscle flexion occurring in the thigh as it bears its wieght. My opinion, it is an old injury of sort.

    Again Kevin, nice work ! Congrats !
    Cheers !

  34. TheForthcoming responds:

    @TimmyRyan65

    Have you even educated yourself about The Shroud
    of Turin or The PG Film?

    The Shroud of Turin was not a hoax. My
    friend who is a biochemist even told
    me that there is no way it could have
    been hoaxed.

    Dr. Jeff Meldrum did an excellent job
    in his book Sasquatch Legend Meets
    Science
    talking about The PG Film
    and how it could not have been
    faked or hoaxed. Likewise Loren
    and Craig have some great points
    as well about the film in question.

  35. sasquatch responds:

    No ones come close in 44 years. That should tell you something about hoaxers ability to fool the zillions of eyes that try to find fault. It takes a lot more spine to say “I think it’s real” or “I can’t say for sure” even…than it does to peek out from the crowd and yell “FAKE!”
    Congratulations you’re accepted by society as a non “fringe thinker”!
    You’re in no danger of being called “Crazy” or “Drunk” Even if you are.
    You’ll probably never discover anything or have any relevance in the big picture either.
    Roger Patterson didn’t live long, but he lived in a way most of us
    would like to- He was a doer…not a talker…guess I should shut up now.

  36. SweatyYeti responds:

    Bukwasboo….red-pill-junkie…Kopite…and Pat….thank you all very much, for your compliments on my work. They are appreciated! : )

  37. TimmyRyan65 responds:

    @TheForthcoming Yes I have indeed educated myself on both subjects that’s why I made the statement. The faithful are very passionate when it comes to defending the authenticity of both. Their passion seems to cloud looking at the scientific evidence or lack of objectively because they want to believe. I want to believe but logic and evidence say otherwise.

    As far as your biochemist friend saying the Shroud of Turin is real is great there are a few people with scientific backgrounds that do believe it’s authentic but most people with scientific backgrounds do not. However even the Pope (or past Popes) and the Vatican itself decline to go as far as to say it is real and are inclined to call it a relic and a testimony of ones faith. That is an undisputed fact. Fake relics were big business in the Middle Ages when the shroud was proven to be made. Carbon dating & Pollen analysis are pretty solid.

    My comparing the P/G film to the Shroud is very valid. People who believe are passionate about both no matter what you present as evidence toward a hoax. To the person who is passionate about the butt of the creature being proof to me I see a separate piece of costuming. It looks like a big furry diaper when you watch the creature walk in the entire film. When you come down to it is just two different opinions.

    I believe the existence of Bigfoot is a possibility but a highly unlikely one. 49 (Hawaii never claimed a Squatch) states, even Rhode Island, have reported these creatures living in them? Come on! No way! We would have had a body by now if that were the case and they were that wide spread.

    Would I bet my life that the P/G film is fake? No. But I sure would bet my next paycheck or even my monthly pay on it! Same with the shroud. But the odds and the evidence say highly unlikely they are both authentic.

    Paterson said it was real. There are a few people who said he faked it and they were in on it or knew about it and saw the suit. Somebody is lying. There is no denying that. So who? The odds are Patterson. He draws a female bigfoot for a book with breast, coned head, hairy butt and a couple of years later while setting out to make a piece of bigfoot fiction comes upon a “real” one identical to his drawing. What are the odds? What are the mathematical odds of being not only that lucky to come across and “actual” creature but to be that accurate in your drawing? Even if filled with the passion of belief you must admit those are HUGE astronomical odds comparable to scoring 3 holes in one in golf!

  38. Igor Bourtsev responds:

    I understand that everybody want to be the investigator of that movie. But It should be better if everybody believe to the real specialists having investigated the film. They were in Russia in 1970: a biomechanicist Dr. Dmitry Donskoy, the Orthopedicists from the Scientific institute, sculptors-anatomists, criminalists, ingeneurs, a British anthropologist Don Greeve in cooperation with me as analitic of the camera movements and other specialists, who together came to conclusion that the film is authentic. Also later on the anthropologists Grover Krantz, Jeff Meldrum, the film analitic MK Davis – all of these specialists have come to conclusion that the film is authentic. And those who just looked at the film can say only about their imagination, nothing more, about the film. Or just admire the movement of the creature and its outlook in the film, taking it as a real creature filmed by the heroes Roger Patterson and his assistant Bob Gimlin.

  39. Kopite responds:

    Igor,

    That is the point. The people who have invested time and effort into actually analysing the Patterson footage properly end up coming away with conclusions pointing towards it being real. This happens way too much for the whole subject to be anything but at least very very interesting and curious.

    This is NOT footage that can be written off easily as a hoax. Those who do that simply aren’t looking at the footage in depth and they are basing their conclusions on an emotional refusal to accept what they are seeing…..which is not a man in a suit.

    Skeptics all too often point the fingers at bigfoot proponents for having a ‘need’ or a ‘desire’ to believe…….yet they never seem to recognise and accept their own in-built emotional rejection of bigfoot, which is just as strong.

    Dr Donald Grieve spoke of this emotional rejection inherent in many skeptics, which clouds their judgements.

  40. TheForthcoming responds:

    @TimmyRyan65 Well at least you seem to have an
    open mind and an honest opinion on the subject
    at hand.

    You seem to have some good points that
    may be valid as well.

    However, comparing the Shroud and the PG film
    seems to me like some sort of logical fallacy as
    one is a film of a biological creature and the other
    being totally unrelated to Cryptozoology and Bigfoot
    as well as the PG film.

    In his book Cryptozoology Science and Speculation
    author Chad Armet talks about why a body of a
    Bigfoot has not been found as has Loren Coleman
    in at least one of his books from what I remember.

    Both Chad and Loren are very well educated
    people regarding scientific knowledge and how
    quickly nature takes care of any dead bodies
    left in a forest, for example which is also
    mentioned on the Texas Bigfoot Research
    Conservancy site under FAQ about Bigfoot
    and Sasquatch creatures. The BFRO also
    deals with these questions as well but Chad
    and Loren have said it best.

    As far as the PG film being faked their are
    numerous articles in books and webpages
    including the BFRO, Loren’s books, and
    of course Dr. Jeff Meldrum’s book Sasquatch:
    Legend Meets Science which explains in detail
    not only what I mentioned above but also how
    the PG film could not have been faked but the
    book is so technical and scientific that only
    certain people will understand the book 100%.

    The bottom line is that even Disney and the
    Planet of The Apes Makeup artists admitted
    that they could not have produced a costume
    that elaborate and also with the many muscle
    movements in it which would have been very
    expensive to make. I wonder how much money
    if any Patterson made from that film?

    Igor has some great points btw as do
    some other people on here about the film.

  41. TheForthcoming responds:

    Also on a side note Kevin Buresh aka SweatyYeti did
    a great job as well on here.

    Kevin I hope to see the Northern Sasquatch
    Research Society on facebook someday
    unless it already is. However, I could not
    locate or find it on facebook.

  42. williambryan responds:

    The suggestion that the figure in the footage could be wearing football shoulder pads is ridiculous. Football shoulder pads, even in the 1960′s, are bulky and they would create a clear and noticeable seperation of the “suit” from the body of anyone wearing the “suit.” It’s clear that there are no football shoulder pads in the Patty film.

  43. terry the censor responds:

    While I appreciate the effort — I really do — these observations are total crap, especially the dark patch being an elbow.
    That being said, the G-P video, even if it turns out to be a fraud, is WAY better than ANYTHING in ufology. They claim to have a mountain of evidence…but there’s not one piece of any consequence whatsoever. The G-P film kicks ufology’s ass.

    ——-
    Advisory from Cryptomundo Admin: Defensive postings of a distractive ufological nature, hijacking this Bigfoot thread, will not be approved. Thankyou.

  44. Johnny Poulsen responds:

    The Patterson film has never been proven a fake in all of it’s 44 years, and in never will be proven a fake even in 44,000 years. Why you might ask? because if we cannot re-create the film using Hollywood’s top special effects in 2011, what makes skeptics think that a couple of poor rodeo cowboys back in the 60s could have done it without any experience? The film & the creature are authentic. Period.

  45. klprds responds:

    I’ve been in the film and television industry for 30 yrs. and as much as I do believe in the existence of a bigfoot type hominid, I’m afraid that I sincerely believe this footage is not the real deal.
    I don’t know who from Disney was interviewed about this, but for every make-up fx fabricator that says it wasn’t possible back then, you’ll find two that would say no problem. When wearing the correct type of padding or special fx make-up appliances that, when placed on certain muscle groups, can easily move with the area they are attached to or riding on (especially the butt or eyebrows). I know this from personal experience. If the hands (fingers) articulated in this footage it would have been much more impressive and help with the argument of arm length, but they don’t. As it stands right now, with all the controversy and claims of suits and suit wearers, I’m really inclined to think that this could have been done back then. I think it’s been over analyzed to the point of silliness, but it’s always looked like a person in a suit to me. I always had a problem with the seam or spine down the back and the short length of the fur/hair.
    I know there are some that are rabid about this, and I don’t mean to disappoint, but this is my own professional opinion. Someday there is bound to be much better and more convincing video/visual evidence available to us believers.

  46. bobzilla responds:

    I’m still on the fence with the PG film.

    I’m still not really able to see the muscle movements everyone mentions. I mostly see changes in the values in the film.

    At this point, I think we almost have to just put this film aside and treat it separately from all other evidence. It’s like the Roswell incident. Even if someone came forward and told you exactly how it was done, believers would still say it’s real. Unfortunately, I don’t think it can ever be proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it’s real. But, it CAN be proven a hoax.

    It’s a touchy subject for both sides. To both sides I say, “I can see your point.” So, I still haven’t made up my mind.

    Bob

  47. texasbeliever responds:

    One factor I never hear mentioned in regards to not only this footage but to all those that have come after is the 6th sense most hunters/combat veterans have. This is the only footage that I have ever seen that makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. And it happens every time I watch the footage.
    I’m a life long hunter, Marine, and now a police officer working the worst part of our city, and you learn to pay attention when those hairs start moving.

    Just my 2 cents

  48. coelacanth1938 responds:

    I think the Patterson-Gimlin footage needs to be examined by plastic surgeons. If anybody would know if those breasts and buttocks were real, it would be them.

  49. Interested responds:

    The delts, tricep and bicep in pictures 6 and 9 are what interest me. It appears you can clearly see the seperation, between a massive tricept in correct proportion with a long but massive bicept. In the second picture it appears you can see the same, but added with massive shoulder, showing the seperation of the delts.

    In athletes and body builders with well defined delts, you get the same appearence and seperation when they are walking with the arm in the same back swing motion.

  50. DWA responds:

    Kopite:

    “Skeptics all too often point the fingers at bigfoot proponents for having a ‘need’ or a ‘desire’ to believe…….yet they never seem to recognise and accept their own in-built emotional rejection of bigfoot, which is just as strong.

    “Dr Donald Grieve spoke of this emotional rejection inherent in many skeptics, which clouds their judgements.”

    One scientist who reviewed the film, and whose analysis told him it was authentic, then abruptly rejected it, because “I just can’t believe the sasquatch is real.” Grieve himself was close to doing that; but his training told him he couldn’t do it and be true to his calling.

    I see this emotional response from True Nonbelievers or whatever you want to call them (certainly not skeptics; I mean, *I’m* a skeptic) all the time.

    A prominent ‘skeptic’ (might have been Dennett or Daegling, I don’t know, they all sound alike after a while) once said that a million pieces of inconclusive evidence are still inconclusive. How can a scientist say this with a straight face? IF IT’S INCONCLUSIVE, YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO FOLLOW IT UP TO, YOU KNOW, FIND OUT WHAT IT IS that’s producing all this evidence!

    That is, if you understand your job as a scientist at all. This fundamental inability to articulate the distinction between evidence and proof – to insist on tossing the entire pile because it isn’t proven yet – will never cease to mystify me.

    Here’s the ultimate skeptic shutter-upper:

    No evidence against authenticity. IN 44 YEARS.

    Anyone who wants me to value his scientific credentials is forced to respond:

    We should know what that is, and not stop looking ’till we do.

  51. choppedlow responds:

    Amazing. After 44 years, everyone is still arguing the same points. As much as I would like Patty to be real (and usually argue points for it being real), I’m mystified that in 44 years no one has taken a decent picture of one since. And the sketch that Patterson drew for his book prior to this encounter was amazingly similar, down to the breasts. I’m hoping it is real, but we will never know. Both sides need to keep an open mind to the possibility that its a great scam, or the real deal.

  52. DWA responds:

    choppedlow:

    The state of affairs you describe is probably due to this being a “field” in which no one feels there are any credentials required for entry.

    I agree with you; I see the same old skeptical shibboleths repeated time and again, by people who have done nothing to acquaint themselves with the background. Same for the proponent views, many of which, like the skeptical stance, accept one’s own experience and skills as qualified for rendering judgment.

    To anyone who has a firm opinion on the provenance of this film:

    Read up. It’s anything but an open-and-shut case.

    Except for one thing:

    It’s open and shut that we should not express any sentiment to the searchers other than support, and wishing them luck.

    BTW: Don’t think Patterson drew a rendering with breasts. You may be referring to William Roe’s alleged close sighting of a female Sasquatch in 1955, from which he dictated to his daughter a description of the animal. Her drawing showed prominent breasts.

    Is this it?

  53. TimmyRyan65 responds:

    @choppedlow You hit the nail right on the head.

    I’m too mystified that in 44 years no one has taken a decent picture of one since.

    Here is a link to a past Cryptomundo article that has Patterson’s Female Bigfoot drawing. (Patterson’s drawing is shown next to his film creations.)

    He must have had a psychic vision! ;)

    But seriously no matter if you think it is real or he faked it, what are the mathematical odds of drawing a female creature. then a few years later go out to film a fictional story of a hunt for said creature, in an area where known hoaxed footprints were made, then stumble unto the real thing that looks exactly like the female creature you drew a few years before?

    You must admit those odds are very astronomical. At least we can all agree on that can we?

    This is before even taking into account the people who have gone on record saying he faked it.

    I’d love for Bigfoot to be real and I am open to the possibility but I just think Paterson faked it for money and these creatures don’t live in all 49 continental United States. I think if they do exist they are isolated in the Northwest where most sightings were before Paterson did his thing!

  54. DWA responds:

    OK, TimmyRyan just put Patterson’s sketch up there. I couldn’t even remember breasts on that drawing.

    Which is only one way in which the drawing is WAY different from the figure in the film. In fact, the figure in the drawing would have been much easier to reproduce in a costume.

    One more piece of evidence that Patterson didn’t do it, if you ask me. It would look like his drawing if he had. That drawing looks more like Elvis than it does like Patty.

  55. TheForthcoming responds:

    @TimmyRyan65 Then how do you explain some of the Native American accounts of a Bigfoot like creature or non human primate even if this film is fake esp. in the area where it was filmed?

    You also have to take into account all the eyewitness reports and sightings of a large bipedal non human primate into account. While some are hoaxes, misidentifications of other animals, etc. not all of them are going to be wrong which would not be logical.

    See here this link for evidence.

    From the link: “The 1967 film obtained by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin in northern California, along with the supporting evidence and onsite follow-up investigations. No one has demonstrated convincing arguments or recreations that begin to cast serious doubt on the validity of the animal shown in the film. Two images, in the possession of the TBRC, of a sasquatch photographed in Oklahoma (not yet available online, but presented at various conferences) bear a remarkable resemblance to the Patterson/Gimlin subject, lending further credence to the film (and to the photos).”

    I agree.

    See also the BFRO’s website as well for the story on if the film is fake.

  56. TheForthcoming responds:

    Also the drawing and the Bigfoot on the video aka Patty look nothing alike!

  57. sloon responds:

    Very interesting.
    It is always easier to dismiss the improbable, rather than to accept the impossible. I have always found the clumsy way it walks (knee flex, arm swing, and foot in front of foot), to be so weird and yet so fluid and graceful. These new interesting details, give further credence to the complexity of P/G film. However inconclusive this film is, it is still a valid discussion after 44 years. Which leads one to believe the film is genuine. The muscle movement looks genuine. The eerie face shoots above showing lip movement, show a protrusive mouth, that is substantially wider than a human mouth. The real waste of time is trying to debunk it. For most it is easier to believe it is faked, than if it were of a real animal. Accepting something so humanlike yet, that walks in a distinctly non-human manner, is a hard pill to swallow. I think we would have to wait another 44 years before someone could design a robot that could convincingly capture the way it walks and its muscles move.

  58. Kopite responds:

    TimmyRyan65,

    If you think that drawing Roger Patterson did looks like Patty then all I have to say to you is please book an appointment with your optician because you need a pair of glasses, badly.

    You also wrote:

    “”This is before even taking into account the people who have gone on record saying he faked it.””

    LOL, nobody else was there with them at Bluff Creek in October ’67. How do they know? What evidence can they present?

    Bob Gimlin is the only man alive proven to have been at Bluff Creek with Patterson in October 1967 and he swears to this day it wasn’t a hoax. Nobody else was there and no evidence points to anyone else being there.

    Bob Heironimus hasn’t one iota of evidence he was even in California at all 1967, nevermind in the ‘suit’ at Bluff Creek in October ’67.

  59. DWA responds:

    Kopite:

    You could add to the pile the very obvious desire for attention and Their Ten Minutes of Fame of everyone who’s “stepped forward” with a hoax theory, or alleged involvement.

    Patterson’s supposed motivations – fame and fortune – make absolutely no sense. Everything he did points AWAY from any attempt to become famous. It’s been pointed out as well that he couldn’t have tried harder, on purpose, to make certain a hoax attempt failed than he did by doing the things he did surrounding the film. Common sense says that Patterson would have run Pattyfake all over CA if that’s what he wanted. He had the costume, right?

    And all we have is this one little jumpy film?

    You speak of the emotional denial with which the scoftical take on this topic is shot through.

    And everything they say points to that.

    Honestly, a vagrant selected at random looks more like Patty than Patterson’s sketch does. But the sketch is totally understandable when seen as what it was: Patterson’s second-hand interpretation of someone else’s story.

    If your opinion isn’t based on the evidence, it falls apart in a hurry. The sole reason Patty compels now more than ever:

    EVIDENCE.

  60. eyeofstrm responds:

    I believe the cable T.V. show American Paranormal got access to the original P.G. film and had a professional reshoot it in High Def. Most photo’s and video’s are copies of copies of copies …… you get the picture. You lose a lot of quality when you do that. Anyhow the final product is incredible. It was discovered that dust particles actually altered parts of the original film. Much clearer Patty than I have ever seen. If you get a chance to view it on T.V. watch it. Wish I could find it on line. If you think she ( Patty ) is a man in a costume after watching it you need new glasses or some serious therapy.

  61. Sharon Lee responds:

    60 comments yet no one who has had an actual sighting of their own.
    I’d like to know, Craig (you’ve seen one) how did your sighting compare to the Patterson creature?
    Was it similar or completely different?
    I have seen many sketches and the body is usually more lean and muscular.

    I’d like to hear from these people who claim to “know” these creatures exist.

  62. SC Enthusiast responds:

    Sharon:

    My daylight sighting occurred four years ago in Northern Tennessee. The bigfoot was trying to hide behind a tree, but was not completely hidden. It was about 20 yards from where I was standing. My companion had a video recorder with zoom. We watched for several minutes.

    My recollection was of a tall creature, with black hair covering the body parts I could see. I don’t think the bigfoot I saw was as thick in body as the PG film. Perhaps it was a juvenile. I don’t know. The face, which we partially saw through the video recorder, was dark in complexion. A major feature was the simian type nose. What you would see on maybe a gorilla? Black nose. Also, very large eyes.

    I so wish I had that day in my life back. I would have done things so much differently. We left some food there for the Bigfoot and left the area. What a mistake!

    My one sighting. I am certainly not an expert, and don’t hold myself out as one. I know what I saw, and I know it was not a black bear or a person in a costume.

  63. DWA responds:

    You know someone is going to ask you where the video is, and call BS on any response that isn’t “here it is:…”

  64. TheForthcoming responds:

    @SC

    DWA has a good point. No objective evidence? Where is the video tape and why not share it with others to see?

  65. scaryeyes responds:

    Not sure why you think that’s such an unreasonable question to ask, to be honest, DWA.

  66. SC Enthusiast responds:

    Yes, I expected someone would ask about the video…

    The next day we viewed the tape on the television, but left the original in the recorder. The person I was with then did the unthinkable. They accidentally left the tape in the camera and taped over it.

    So call BS on me.

    As a matter of reference, I am an actuary working for the state of South Carolina. I am 52 years old, married with two grown children. I have NOT posted a video on YouTube. I have not written a book. I have not attempted to gain attention or financial gain from what I have communicated here.

    I posted here only to provide my experience on what I saw, since I was fortunate enough to have a daylight sighting only 20 yards away. It was so remarkable, and occurred when I was just becoming interested in Bigfoot, that to be completely honest, I didn’t even think it was an uncommon happening. Thus, the reason I suggested we leave the area as a token of good faith.

    Yes, if I had that day over, I would have insisted we make copies of the tape. But I can’t bring it back.

    I would much rather be accused of being mistaken for what I saw that of lying.

    Anyway, you asked for people to come forward.

  67. DWA responds:

    SC Enthusiast:

    I’m calliing BS.

    But not on you. I just told you what to be ready for.

    (This will be a long post.)

    (Scaryeyes: I thought it was a totally reasonable question. Why I asked. Why Sharon did.)

    There is one reason that P/G – that no single piece of evidence – is taken seriously. And that is, simply, that no one, at least no one who counts, believes anyone who says anything. I have long wondered, frequently right here on Cryptomundo, how anyone with a brain could possibly think we could have proof after five years, 10, 50, or 7,000….WHEN NO ONE WHO COUNTS BELIEVES ANYONE WHO SAYS ANYTHING. The evidence for the sasquatch – and yours goes firmly on the pile, for reasons I have often taken pains to point out here, and am about to again – has the power it does not because of any particular one, although P/G is almost indisputably the most powerful single one. It has the power it does because of the sheer size (frequency) and internal consistency (coherence) of that pile, two factors that any truly objective scientist (almost none are on this topic) clearly recognizes as making evidence valid and testable, even if short of proof.

    Succinctly stated: everything else for which we have the same pattern of evidence has been proven to exist. Period.

    And to anyone who truly understands how to think about this, and most don’t, that means: We have to search until we confirm. Period. (No time-limit; no when-stop-the-nonsense. When mainstream science isn’t involved you haven’t even started looking.)

    One frequently sees the call-BS on experiences of the kind you had. Oh, suuuuuure, they say. Forgot the camera. How convenient. Or forgot there was one on your lap. Suuuure. (I have read more than one account of the latter.) One never thinks to think about how THERE IS ONLY ONE KIND OF PERSON who gets this kind of shot: Roger Patterson.

    KIDDING.

    But not totally. To get a good clear pic or vid of an elusive animal, one needs to be either lottery-lucky (none are, except sounds like you were…and folks do, after all, win Powerball) or PREPARED both technically and psychologically to wait for the shot, and get it when it comes. It helps to be in a prime location, where much evidence of the animal is present. Patterson was all three; the evidence is why he went where he did. Luck – he could tell you, were he here to do so – is indeed where preparation meets opportunity. They prepared, like no one else has, to get the shot. Three-day field trips don’t cut it. Three-and-a-half-week expeditions on horseback, with a camera in a special saddlebag, ready for a cowboy to pull a cowboy-style draw that he rehearsed extensively in advance: now you are talking.

    You guys? Sounds like what happened is what frequently happens. It happens all the time, with mundane subjects; and never ever does, or should, with this one?

    Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.

    I wouldn’t have gone into chapter and verse unless prompted either. You were there. We weren’t. What right do we have to call BS? If you saw a unicorn, or a centaur, now I might have to go…well, you know, there isn’t a unicorn/centaur database anywhere that I’m aware of, much less multiple databases, all with internally consistent reports and lots of them, spanning just about every kind of encounter possible with a wild animal. But you were there; I wasn’t; and I’d simply have to say: thanks, but that isn’t proof. It’s one story. It would be proof to you, though, if it were real: you were there.

    This is my problem, and why I call BS on the oh-suuuuuuuuuuuuuuure people. How sure could they be? They need to just shut up and think for a change. Evidence is not proof unless science accepts it; and there isn’t a skeptic on this topic who seems to understand that simple concept. Which is absolutely fundamental to jurisprudence, as well as science, so I have trouble understanding the major fail. I’m sorry you don’t have the backup. This might be a different world if you did.

    But I can’t call BS on Patterson; on you; or on anyone else who claims an experience. At least one friend of mine has seen what, if it wasn’t one, sure sounded to me like one. And never having seen one, I’ve seen on two occasions evidence easy to explain this way…and virtually impossible to explain in any other.

    It’s all evidence. And everything else like it has been proven real.

    Period.

  68. SC Enthusiast responds:

    DWA:

    Thank you for your post. I am a daily visitor to this website. I read all the stories, and all the comments. I realize there is a lot of BS out there in the crypto world. And it is hard to be anything but sceptical when a claim is made.

    I’ll leave it at that. In reflection, I know I did so many STUPID things that day and the following morning. I’m not proud of it, and I fully expected to get dissed in a major way. That you had the decency to not do so is greatly appreciated.

    Perhaps when (and if) I continue my “research” I will have more to say here.

  69. Opalman responds:

    I realize this is a late post, wish I had seen the topic sooner. I’ll comment anyway hoping that someone reads it.
    Especially important to me is my response to TimmyRyan65 below.

    As stated too many time now, I grew up hunting and trapping, as well zoology has been a particularly important fascination of mine ever since I was 5 or 6 years old. I not only know bout every mammal species on the planet’s monikers but I can rattle of their Latin names. Like whiteriverfisherman relates all you really need is a lifetime of observing mammals to come to the very correct if unscientific conclusion that the Patty is the real deal. Arguments based on physiology and body mechanics of a creature yet to be dissected are a waste of time. IMO anyone who has spent a lot of time studying the actions, habits and movements of animals needs no convincing as to the authenticity of the film and the existence of the creature. The film subject screams “I’m real”—period. If I where to rely on purely logical arguments for the non-existence or existence of the creature I would not be so convinced either way. I would be another skeptic who merely saw himself as “open to the possibility” of sasquatche’s existence. But taken with the other anecdotal evidence such as reports and sightings from folks I have absolute confidence in the issue becomes, how do we get the scientific community to look into this seriously. I guess the answer to that for me is…money! I really believe that If I had (personally) a couple of mil to budget and spend intelligently the issue would be solved once and for all.

    @ TimmyRyan65
    You sir would be well advised to keep your blasphemous assertions to yourself and out of a public forum. Are you so inconsiderate and disrespectful as to trample on another’s sacred spiritual beliefs?

    I don’t know what your references are (I suspect you have none) but the majority of world acclaimed science specialists from around the world and comprising the STURP which included the (Jet propulsion Lab; Pasadena CA, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and several others have unanimously concluded:
    A. There is no accurate way to date the Shroud of Turin. (unanimously agreed)
    B. The mechanism for the deposition of radiation scarification of the material is unknown to modern man and that they have not been able to replicate it in any lab. (unanimously agreed)
    C. Forensic pathologist have determined that the blood staining the cloth was AB type.
    D. The very advanced VP8 Image Analyzer conclusively determined that a 3D hologram like image appears when viewed from the instrument. This is impossible to duplicate without a sophisticated lab’s laser light table. (unanimously agreed) And even then the results are inferior to the Shroud.
    E. The STURP’s published conclusion was that the Shroud of Turin represents something totally unknown, impossible to duplicate and not at all understood from a physics and forensic standpoint.

    Where do you get off writing that it’s a fake?
    I could go on with similarly listed technical points that validate my stand and write a long paper on this subject but I won’t, after all this is a bit off topic. Since though, you choose to reference the Shroud in your argument, making ignorant comparisons with sasquatch research; I feel my apologetics are well justified. Should the small chance exist that you might be interested in facts instead of parroting crap your atheist friends excrete from their mouths, you are hereby encouraged to do some research yourself.

    The problem with sasquatch discussion site is typified by posts such as yours. So many people stating things they were actual facts when they are actually total ignorant BS.

  70. TimmyRyan65 responds:

    Dear Mr. Opalman;

    It is quite obvious from your post that you are quite passionate about both the Patterson film and the Shroud of Turin. That was exactly my point in making the comparisons. You obviously have faith and lot’s of it.

    Everything I stated in my post in regard to the shroud is indeed FACT and not “blasphemous” (a faith based word). Test were done on the shroud and it was dated from the medieval age. That is a Fact. It makes sense, fake religious relics were a HUGE business back then. That is another Fact. The Vatican (HQ to one of the world’s largest religions and OWNERS of the shroud) decline to declare it REAL. That is a Fact. How are these three facts “blasphemous”? Again your faith in both just proves my point. Thank you for this. And I will keep posting.

    That is great that you consider yourself knowledgeable about living creatures but please tell me how on earth your knowledge of Latin words for living creatures makes what is portrayed in the Paterson film legit? It has nothing to do with it. Even if you have a degree in biology or natural science or other related field (I assume you don’t since I am sure you would have mentioned it in your post.) does not make the subject in Patterson’s film legit.

    The burden of proof does not lie with the people who do not believe that the subject in the Paterson film is a cryptid, it lies with the people who say it is an unknown creature. I say it is a guy in a furry suit whose butt is bound by a non-moving diaper like costume piece. That is more believable. More practical. More sense. Most importantly more likely.

    With technology expanding by leaps and bounds with HD cameras, infrared, motion sensing, etc. if Bigfoot does exist then it will probably be proven very soon. If it doesn’t then it will go the way of Nessie where fewer & fewer sightings or evidence will trickle in. Past sightings/evidence will be disproven (Surgeon’s Photo, the “enhanced” flipper photo, etc.) and become folklore & tourist attractions.

    Keep the faith Mr. Opalman, because right now that’s all you have in regard to the Patterson film. Faith just like in the Shroud of Turin.

    I wish you well.



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

mmcm

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot The Artwork of Sybilla Irwin



Advertisement




|Top | FarBar|



Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.