71 replies to this topic

[Stardrive]

^^^LOL @ me I'm a poet and don't know it.

[Stardrive]

psyche101, on 02 May 2012 - 03:30 AM, said:

How do you find the match?

I know you were asking Ken but I found the match very good. I guess all we need now is to find the time machine they used and this matter is sewed up. There is still no proof of the costume used in the PFG. Just a re-creation 35 years later. While we don't know for a fact either way, the comparison you illustrated makes for a good possiblility.

But really, it took 35 years, with a blueprint (PGF) to boot, to create something close. That's interesting in itself.

Edited by Stardrive, 03 May 2012 - 04:09 PM.

[psyche101]

Stardrive, on 03 May 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

I know you were asking Ken but I found the match very good. I guess all we need now is to find the time machine they used and this matter is sewed up. There is still no proof of the costume used in the PFG. Just a re-creation 35 years later. While we don't know for a fact either way, the comparison you illustrated makes for a good possiblility.

And it quells any claim that the suit cannot be reproduced, which footers do chime in with every now and then.
With regards to proof, I would beg to differ, Harvey Anderson is one very important witness in this respect, he can recollect Patterson asking for advice on physical attributes whilst allegedly in the suits possession, and that Phillip Morris was indeed selling the suit at the time, this I find evidence that allows reasonable suspicion, but ones conviction to context determines if it is proof for the individual.
If a scat in the woods, or a Coconut fibre is considered in circles to be proof of Bigfoot, then I think this particular set of circumstances is also sufficiently robust enough to be considered as proof as well.  

Stardrive, on 03 May 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

But really, it took 35 years, with a blueprint (PGF) to boot, to create something close. That's interesting in itself.

Ahh, but it didn't. Roger bought one back in 67, and Phillip Morris was selling the suit at the time. It took 35 years for someone to come forward, which really is quite different, and I find the circumstances surrounding the reasoning quite plausible.

[keninsc]

Quote

And it quells any claim that the suit cannot be reproduced, which footers do chime in with every now and then.

I recall being told that also on a number of other sites over the years. Hell, did none of them ever watch "The Six Million Dollar Man"? Andre the Giant was a very convincing Bigfoot......come to think of it he was in league with aliens as well. That was in '76.

[Stardrive]

psyche101, on 04 May 2012 - 02:00 AM, said:

And it quells any claim that the suit cannot be reproduced

I don't think there's a doubt that something like it can be produced. It's the fact something like it wasn't produced until 2002.

Quote

II think this particular set of circumstances is also sufficiently robust enough to be considered as proof as well.  

As robust as it is, I'd still consider it as "evidence to the contrary", not "proof to the contrary".

Quote

Ahh, but it didn't. Roger bought one back in 67, and Phillip Morris was selling the suit at the time. It took 35 years for someone to come forward, which really is quite different, and I find the circumstances surrounding the reasoning quite plausible.

I agree, quite within the realm of plausability.

[Night Walker]

Stardrive, on 04 May 2012 - 05:48 PM, said:

I don't think there's a doubt that something like it can be produced. It's the fact something like it wasn't produced until 2002.

I think this is significant because it marks a massive upswing in Bigfoot's popularity in the internet age. Folklore traditionally spreads via word-of-mouth which largely limits it to specific areas but the internet bypasses that restriction allowing word-of-mouth to spread like a digital wildfire. Bigfoot is now sexy (so to speak). Before the internet, Bigfoot (and the Patterson film) simply did not have that kind of mass appeal which would warrant the effort to reproduce the costume...

[QuiteContrary]

Night Walker, on 04 May 2012 - 10:09 PM, said:

I think this is significant because it marks a massive upswing in Bigfoot's popularity in the internet age. Folklore traditionally spreads via word-of-mouth which largely limits it to specific areas but the internet bypasses that restriction allowing word-of-mouth to spread like a digital wildfire. Bigfoot is now sexy (so to speak). Before the internet, Bigfoot (and the Patterson film) simply did not have that kind of mass appeal which would warrant the effort to reproduce the costume...

It sure hooked me. Before the Internet Bigfoot was really an unknown to me except for the "movies".
Jump to years later and the Net and viola! I'm inundated with Bigfoot information: facts, sightings, evidence. Right at my fingertips! So
I can see the footprints and even talk to the witnesses. And easily find obscure books on the subject and learn from real experts.  
Sooo, "There must really be something to this creature... I couldn't help but conclude, however briefly.

Edited by QuiteContrary, 04 May 2012 - 10:28 PM.

[JonathanVonErich]

Interesting video Dan, thanks for sharing.

I agree with Sak and others that the video doesn't prove that the film is real, and I'm convinced that it's a hoax, but still I think we need to watch every side and angle of the PGF ( even the posterior ) haha

[keninsc]

One thing I'd like to see done is the comparison of the body part to human norms. I've seen that done on some other videos and pictures of alledged Bigfoots, but if memory serves I've never seen it done on the PGF. Could be it's been done and it shows the limbs to be within the range of human parts.

[Night Walker]

QuiteContrary, on 04 May 2012 - 10:26 PM, said:

It sure hooked me. Before the Internet Bigfoot was really an unknown to me except for the "movies".
Jump to years later and the Net and viola! I'm inundated with Bigfoot information: facts, sightings, evidence. Right at my fingertips! So
I can see the footprints and even talk to the witnesses. And easily find obscure books on the subject and learn from real experts.  
Sooo, "There must really be something to this creature... I couldn't help but conclude, however briefly.

Another important factor in the rise of Bigfoot subculture was Bob Gimlin. It is important to note that when the film came out in the late 60s it was known only as “the Patterson Film” and Gimlin, if he was mentioned at all, was referred to only as an “Indian guide”. After the infamous film Gimlin was sidelined by Patterson (who hired an actor to play Bob Gimlin on stage when promoting the film around America). Yet Gimlin also seemed content to avoid the limelight never commenting in any detail one way or another and never again searched for Bigfoot.

This continued all throughout the 70s and well into the 80s. Many references to Bigfoot at the time largely dismissed the Patterson film and showed greater attention to the Minnesota Iceman. At some point (late 80s or early 90s?) something changed and Gimlin began reengaging with the then small ‘footer community and the Patterson film once again became the centrepiece – only now it became known as the “Patterson-Gimlin Film”. Then came the internet (word-of-mouth on steriods) and Bigfoot went global.

Little is known about this particular phase of the Bigfoot phenomenon. Exactly when and why Gimlin re-entered the fray is unknown (or not disclosed). If enough people are interested it would be good to examine this phase in greater detail by chasing down specific quotes and references and piecing together the events...

[Stardrive]

Night Walker, on 04 May 2012 - 10:09 PM, said:

I think this is significant because it marks a massive upswing in Bigfoot's popularity in the internet age. Folklore traditionally spreads via word-of-mouth which largely limits it to specific areas but the internet bypasses that restriction allowing word-of-mouth to spread like a digital wildfire. Bigfoot is now sexy (so to speak).

I think the internet has opened things up. Access to information on the subject and the ability to report a sighting, all from the comfort of your home, has contributed to the upswing in popularity of the subject. Look at us for example, we wouldn't be here if we weren't interested in the subject. And now we have a place to discuss it. I was interested in the subject when I was young because of the PGF. Then I lost interest for about 30 years. Then came the internet.......

Quote

Before the internet, Bigfoot (and the Patterson film) simply did not have that kind of mass appeal which would warrant the effort to reproduce the costume...

But, if we do that, then we have to throw away the fame and fortune card played as the motive for producing the PGF to begin with. There was a certain amount of mass appeal at the time, but no convincing copy-cat vids were ever produced to hold interest. So the subject just faded out.

[Night Walker]

Stardrive, on 05 May 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:

But, if we do that, then we have to throw away the fame and fortune card played as the motive for producing the PGF to begin with. There was a certain amount of mass appeal at the time, but no convincing copy-cat vids were ever produced to hold interest. So the subject just faded out.

Why do we have to throw away fame and fortune as the motive for the Patterson film? That is exactly what transpired for Patterson. The fortune part was only fleeting because of the lack of interest from Hollywood. Give some credit to Patterson - he was a crafty and creative with his attempts to strike the Big Time. Who else at the time had the background knowledge of Bigfoot folklore, the talent, the motivation (Patterson knew he had cancer and that his time was limited), and the balls to pull it off? Of course, lesser mortals gave it a go - Marx, Wallace, etc - but they all lacked Patterson's drive, ability, and showmanship.

That sort of entrepreneurial talent in relation to Bigfoot had not been seen again until the internet age - charging for "expeditions", Finding Bigfoot, and the latest DNA scam. These are cash cows but note that none of them involve making a suit.

Making a suit, capturing it on camera, and marketing it as authenitic Bigfoot is very problematic in the internet age because it is so much easier for someone/anyone to look into it and expose it. That is very risky. Bigfoot is best when the evidence is ambiguous or even if there is no evidence. "I know what I saw" anecdotes are still the most popular method of stoking the folklore and writing books about Bigfoot.