The Patterson-Gimlin Film: An Analysis

reply to post by RUFFREADY


Fascinating stuff Ruffready.

IMO, this film can be anything you want it to be, depending on who is looking at it. I doubt a man in a costume can be genuinely ruled out and find claims that it hasn't been debunked etc. really hold no water. Whether it is seen as genuine or not, can surely only amount to an opinion, it isn't good enough quality to prove either way.

What is more telling is that nothing has surfaced so far, which would genuinely validate it. Surely as the sightings mount, indicating that bigfoot must be one of the more widespread large creatures inhabiting North America, something definitive should be found? After all, we are not asking for proof of god here.

As time passes, sightings mount, yet nothing is found, this points more and more to it being a fake (it even looks fake IMO). Which opens the fascinating question of, why or how do people encounter something that doesn't seem to exist (if we accept that at least some of these claims are made by genuine people, which I do, and quite definite/unambiguous as to what was seen)?

Here are a few films some folks might want to check out. The site updates pretty often.

www.bigfootencounters.com...

reply to post by RUFFREADY


Well after seeing a very similar creature that walked and moved in exactly the same way, I don't have to wonder anymore. As much as it rocked my world, I am very glad for the experience. I just wish there was some way to conveigh it to the world.

I know one thing, and that is that the military has the proof we all need, because where I saw it at there are troops doing maneuvers all the time with all the night vision and high tech equipment they have, they must have proof enough for the world, so I wonder why they are keeping it a secret? What possible purpose would there be in keeping the secret?

Now there is a conspiracy for you

Originally posted by Coopdog
reply to post by RUFFREADY

 

Well after seeing a very similar creature that walked and moved in exactly the same way, I don't have to wonder anymore. As much as it rocked my world, I am very glad for the experience. I just wish there was some way to conveigh it to the world.

I know one thing, and that is that the military has the proof we all need, because where I saw it at there are troops doing maneuvers all the time with all the night vision and high tech equipment they have, they must have proof enough for the world, so I wonder why they are keeping it a secret? What possible purpose would there be in keeping the secret?

Now there is a conspiracy for you

This is interesting. Can you tell the story how it happened?

I was driving home late one night and it simply walked across the road in front of me about 400 ft away from me but the thing was HUGE so I could see it very plainly lit up in my headlights with my brights on. If I had not had my brights on it would have been just out of headlight range and I would have missed it entirely, but I had plenty of time to see it evaluate it and then re-evaluate it before it walked off to the right covering a lot of ground also.

I made a thread on it in the crypto forum after I saw it www.abovetopsecret.com...

M.K. Davis Addresses "Herniated Muscle" On Patterson-Gimlin Creature's Leg

another take on "the image artifacts" seems he wants us to think "shot in the leg", maybe..

Moose hunter shoots "bigfoot" to death

This case is very convincing. I've read it a few times. I think the guy is telling it like it happened.

source BFRO Report # 9552 (Class A) www.bfro.net...

Oh..and he said it looked like the bigfoot in the The Patterson-Gimlin Film.

This video is one of the main reasons I believe the PG film depicts a true specimen of an unknown hominid...

The shin rise as Patty walks. Very interesting. I tried replicating an approximate angle myself while trying to maintain the natural sort of walk the creature has and it was, well, difficult (almost cramped my calf >

reply to post by JackofBlades


Yep! Ain't that a hoot! I mentioned that also..somewhere. It sure makes one think..that if they faked that PGF how in the heck would they of thought to make it walk like that. It was talked about by Loren Colman on Cryptomundo also recently. Ok..thats all.

Originally posted by JackofBlades
This video is one of the main reasons I believe the PG film depicts a true specimen of an unknown hominid...

The shin rise as Patty walks. Very interesting. I tried replicating an approximate angle myself while trying to maintain the natural sort of walk the creature has and it was, well, difficult (almost cramped my calf >

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


II'm not that convinced it can be debunked so easily. While it is, of course, easy enough to look at it now and recreate it, it's something I don't imagine would come up between a couple of guys when discussing how best to create a hoax. Similarly, as it showed in the original vid, the guy who claimed to be in the suit at the time, when 'recreating' the motions he took, made no attempt at even trying to mimic the shin rise. And considering how unusual a gait it is for a human to casually perform, i find it suspect that he would have just forgotten.

Originally posted by JackofBlades
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

 

II'm not that convinced it can be debunked so easily. While it is, of course, easy enough to look at it now and recreate it, it's something I don't imagine would come up between a couple of guys when discussing how best to create a hoax. Similarly, as it showed in the original vid, the guy who claimed to be in the suit at the time, when 'recreating' the motions he took, made no attempt at even trying to mimic the shin rise. And considering how unusual a gait it is for a human to casually perform, i find it suspect that he would have just forgotten.

Did you not watch the linked video at all?

It would be difficult for any normal human to walk any other way in floppy rubber feet. Completely consistent with a man in a costume.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


I did indeed, and as I said the guy who claims to have been inside the suit has made no mention of the odd gait the suit demanded (to my knowledge), and when recreating the performance he makes no effort to even mimic the walk. And considering its such a noticeably unusual walk one would assume he would remember it

M.K.Davis discusses a possible second Sasquatch in the Patterson film

Another look at the famous film. New information and interesting stuff he has to say. Have a look. Do you see it?
Is there more to find in this film?

Tedious detail work on the Patterson film.- extended footage not normally shown before...
by film analyst M.K. Davis
source "Bigfoot encounters" on the web

length of humerous is way too human like for me

reaction to men on horses is way to guy in a suit performing a role for me

why didn't they shoot it ?

just doesn't pass the sniff test

Way before the P/G film there was an 8MM film that's pretty cool. Just to show that this was a "thing" seen before P/G here is that film.

Harlan Ford Films Sasquatch in Louisiana Swamp. 1963 This is the oldest video of a Sasquatch to date. It confirms on Consistent Coloring, Long arms, High shoulders, Slope to back, Fluid Rolling gait while running, tree-hiding and fleeing after being seen. This also includes the Audio of the two encounters by Ted Williams, who had two very close encounters. Thanks to BDH for the great help with this analysis.

source: facebook find bigfoot and Jack Barnes & Jeff Andersen & History channel (Published on Jan 11, 2013 on youtube)

Published on Jan 11, 2013--
Published on Jan 11, 2013

Patterson Gimlin Film: Why It's Not a Guy in Bigfoot Suit


www.Facebook.com... -- #1/62 Part 2: Analysis Video. "WHY PATTY IS DEFINITELY NOT A GUY IN A SUIT." Why the Patterson Gimlin Film is absolutely 100% not a guy in a suit? Here are the top ten reasons. There is no way that anyone today or in 1967 or in 2167 could build a suit to replicate the film. Because Patty is a real living organism, can you put a suit on a lion and make it be a tiger?, it'd look ridiculous. (We actually list 18 reasons.)

FB/FB wishes to thank Bill Munns for his great work toward making this video explanation.

Another look. Makes some good points on the 1967 film. Still unexplained how it was done if fake. 967 they did a good job if faked.

Im not an expert on this so if a person who seems credible enough or a realistic test is run ill trust it. And I have seen so much documentaries attempt to prove and disprove it, so at one minute it seems reall the next it seems fake.
so what I do know is that the most consistant ones I hear are that
1 no official proof of the costume has come out
2 a human can mimic the walking motion done by the creature though when wearing a costume it is somewhat more difficult to do

I just watched some of the Gimlin interviews. I fully believe every word the man speaks, as he strikes me as totally genuine. With the film evidence and this man's word and eye witness testimony, this event really did happen.

I'm convinced.

New work by Bill Munns-Patty recreation

These pictures are from Bill's Discovery Day V presentation, as he discussed in great detail. Bills in depth research analyzing the Patterson Gimlin Film can be reviewed here at The Munns Report, as well as a list of his P&G Film accomplishments

He has male and female models dress up and do the walk. Very interesting. Its says in the article that it was very unlikely a costume in 1967. Give it a look and read.

source: bigfootdiscoveryproject.blogspot.com...