Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9
skookum

The Patterson Bigfoot suit

303 posts in this topic

I think the reason the film makes the suit look better than hollywood movies is that the quality is not what hollywood movie are.

Also, in response to the "why does it have boobs" question, I ask why are the nipples hairy? Nipples are usually exposed for easy suction.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yeah, but I just can't imagine something as large as Bigfoots are supposed to be can stay hidden so well. Back in the day, the guys who did really well in Nam were all smaller. Big guys like me all too often wound up stopping bullets, the smaller guys were usually quicker, quieter, more agile and could sneak up on just about anyone. Hell, you could hear me breath 4 meters away.

I do not think Meganthropus got quite as big as the average Bigfoot normally proposed, and as the Ice Age backed of and the sultry conditions we enjoy today became commonplace, Meganthropus had got to big to survive the new climate. His problem being shape. When we get bigger, we do not expand all round, our organs are piled on top of each other to accomodate a bipedal stance, supported by the pelvis. Our skin acts as our radiator reducing body heat. When we get bigger the expansion is not proportional, so our engine becomes too large for our radiator. Poor old Meganthropus cooked himself into extinction.

People with Gigantism can compensate with airconditioning or the like, but usually do not live long lives due to other defects that become apparent with size. (It is usually caused by a benign tumor located on the pituitary gland resulting in delayed puberty, cardiovascular problems, and other endocrine problems). But that is a disorder too, not evolutionary design, only Meganthropus was used as natures experiment to see just how be we can get, and continue to function optimally.

It's why I cannot see the Yowie as plausible. He simply cannot survive this climate according to descriptions.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention that the larger you are the more you have to eat to maintain that large body. We currently have problems with bears in garbage dumps because they're large and there are a lot of calories to be had in garbage dumps and dumpsters. I do recall reading about a bigfoot being sighted in a dumpster behind a restaurant or some sort of food establishment, but I only recall reading a couple of reports like that. My point being, while larger is often a positive, there comes a point where you're just too effing big to really do yourself any good.

I'm what used to be a big guy, I'm 6'-4", 230 Lbs. A Bigfoot is between 6' and......whatever depending on who's report you read, but let's go with 9'-0" just for giggles. Estimated weights are between 400 Lbs and......again depending on who's numbers you use, up to 1100 Lbs. Now I know how many calories I need to eat in the course of a day in order to maintain my current body weight versus the amount of activity I currently put out, and on average I consume some 3000 calories a day on average. Now compare that to a Bigfoot.....and yes, I do realize we have no idea what a Bigfoot's metabolism is like, so I am reaching here.......So let's assume we have a Bigfoot in the range of 7'-6" tall and 600 Lbs. This sucker is very nearly three times my weight and over a foot taller than me, and he's supposed to be sort of average. I live in a climate controlled environment, I use powered vehicular transportation, I do physical work and exercise, but I don't have to forage for my food. By contrast, you have this large bipedal.......thing......three times my body weight who has to eat to maintain itself, plus it has to forage for food, travel via walking/running, it has to hunt for food, be it whatever it eats.

Now what I'm getting at is, being large has certain disadvantages in terms of survivability and if we take this critter to the extreme end of witness accounts then were talking 10'-0" plus in height and some 1100 lbs. This sucker would need to kill a deer every day and that would be just for him to maintain himself. Not to mention the possibility of a "family" group with a female and possibly an offspring or two to feed. I don't know about Bigfoots but i can tell you teens can eat you out of house and home in short order and if you got a teen Bigfoot, who knows? Then come the winter he's got to burn more calories to stay warm or hibernate or maybe semi-hibernate like some mammals do. So the more time it has to spend looking for food the more likely the chances for a human encounters and with those encounters then the chances go up that we'd know about them being real or not. You follow me on this?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention that the larger you are the more you have to eat to maintain that large body. We currently have problems with bears in garbage dumps because they're large and there are a lot of calories to be had in garbage dumps and dumpsters. I do recall reading about a bigfoot being sighted in a dumpster behind a restaurant or some sort of food establishment, but I only recall reading a couple of reports like that. My point being, while larger is often a positive, there comes a point where you're just too effing big to really do yourself any good.

I'm what used to be a big guy, I'm 6'-4", 230 Lbs. A Bigfoot is between 6' and......whatever depending on who's report you read, but let's go with 9'-0" just for giggles. Estimated weights are between 400 Lbs and......again depending on who's numbers you use, up to 1100 Lbs. Now I know how many calories I need to eat in the course of a day in order to maintain my current body weight versus the amount of activity I currently put out, and on average I consume some 3000 calories a day on average. Now compare that to a Bigfoot.....and yes, I do realize we have no idea what a Bigfoot's metabolism is like, so I am reaching here.......So let's assume we have a Bigfoot in the range of 7'-6" tall and 600 Lbs. This sucker is very nearly three times my weight and over a foot taller than me, and he's supposed to be sort of average. I live in a climate controlled environment, I use powered vehicular transportation, I do physical work and exercise, but I don't have to forage for my food. By contrast, you have this large bipedal.......thing......three times my body weight who has to eat to maintain itself, plus it has to forage for food, travel via walking/running, it has to hunt for food, be it whatever it eats.

Now what I'm getting at is, being large has certain disadvantages in terms of survivability and if we take this critter to the extreme end of witness accounts then were talking 10'-0" plus in height and some 1100 lbs. This sucker would need to kill a deer every day and that would be just for him to maintain himself. Not to mention the possibility of a "family" group with a female and possibly an offspring or two to feed. I don't know about Bigfoots but i can tell you teens can eat you out of house and home in short order and if you got a teen Bigfoot, who knows? Then come the winter he's got to burn more calories to stay warm or hibernate or maybe semi-hibernate like some mammals do. So the more time it has to spend looking for food the more likely the chances for a human encounters and with those encounters then the chances go up that we'd know about them being real or not. You follow me on this?

Yes I do follow you, I have seen teenagers eat, and it is a scary thing. I never considered teen age Bigfoot diets, but my pantry would not last 2 minutes.

I am assuming that what you are saying to me is that we know this animal will need calories, and if the reports are anything to go by we have an omnivore at least - no gorilla sized gut to deal with breaking down vegetation. And as such there should be certain times of the year when resources are at a premium, and this would be an opportune time to bag a biff. It would also indicate likely routes to known prolific hunting grounds eg. Bears and the Salmon run.

If I have that right, indeed that is the tip of the ecological iceberg when we consider environmental impact, from what we see, Biff seems to rely on pine needles and ice. No population shows any impact at all that can be prescribed to Biff, no study has ever shown an unbalanced system with a hole in it. Some proponents argue the population is small, which then encroached on genetic viability being reduced to a level that would see Biff extinct some time ago anyway, et we have no fossil recors to match Biffs place in our evolutionary climb. MVP (minimum viable population) restricts most vertebrates to at least 4,000 species, which seems in line with the lower estimates on Biff populations by enthusiasts. Some claim Bears absorb the impact, but we never see Biff Bear conflicts which if the former happens is a given, and frankly, my money would be on the bear. I have seen population counts range from 3,000 to 11,000 with the odd inane comment of there being 400 left interjected from time to time with no supporting structures.

It seems no matter where you turn, the only way Biff can exist is orally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's the other thing that has always sort of made me wonder, depending on who's numbers you go by then there are between 2000 and 20,000 Bigfoot roaming North America. Now North America is a large land mass and if you extrapolate a few things you find from the reports of sighting, Bigfoots love cover, trees, scrub trees. They can adapt to low lands such as swamps and handle mountainous terrain. The only places I haven't heard of too many reports is in deserts, there have been a few but not very many.

So, you have a very large bipedal primate, who has to eat tons of food to survive, then they have to locate a mate....mate.....and raise up the next generation. And strangely with all this activity going on, no one can get a descent picture of one of the buggers or a family group. Sort of reminds me of what I see whenever read a report on a UFO sighting, the person who has had the sighting can describe the darn thing he saw in finely detailed terms. Then if he has a camera with him and had the presence of mind to use it, the pictures he takes are so out of focus, blurry, or so far away you can't make anything out from them, but the witness gave minute and highly detailed information. What I'm saying is that a witness gives an account, but that account doesn't jive with the pictures he took.

Bigfoot photos are very often the same thing, you got an inky blob, fit only for a school news paper. However the witness can give you great and detailed descriptions. So I have to pause and wonder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention that the larger you are the more you have to eat to maintain that large body. We currently have problems with bears in garbage dumps because they're large and there are a lot of calories to be had in garbage dumps and dumpsters. I do recall reading about a bigfoot being sighted in a dumpster behind a restaurant or some sort of food establishment, but I only recall reading a couple of reports like that. My point being, while larger is often a positive, there comes a point where you're just too effing big to really do yourself any good.

I'm what used to be a big guy, I'm 6'-4", 230 Lbs. A Bigfoot is between 6' and......whatever depending on who's report you read, but let's go with 9'-0" just for giggles. Estimated weights are between 400 Lbs and......again depending on who's numbers you use, up to 1100 Lbs. Now I know how many calories I need to eat in the course of a day in order to maintain my current body weight versus the amount of activity I currently put out, and on average I consume some 3000 calories a day on average. Now compare that to a Bigfoot.....and yes, I do realize we have no idea what a Bigfoot's metabolism is like, so I am reaching here.......So let's assume we have a Bigfoot in the range of 7'-6" tall and 600 Lbs. This sucker is very nearly three times my weight and over a foot taller than me, and he's supposed to be sort of average. I live in a climate controlled environment, I use powered vehicular transportation, I do physical work and exercise, but I don't have to forage for my food. By contrast, you have this large bipedal.......thing......three times my body weight who has to eat to maintain itself, plus it has to forage for food, travel via walking/running, it has to hunt for food, be it whatever it eats.

Now what I'm getting at is, being large has certain disadvantages in terms of survivability and if we take this critter to the extreme end of witness accounts then were talking 10'-0" plus in height and some 1100 lbs. This sucker would need to kill a deer every day and that would be just for him to maintain himself. Not to mention the possibility of a "family" group with a female and possibly an offspring or two to feed. I don't know about Bigfoots but i can tell you teens can eat you out of house and home in short order and if you got a teen Bigfoot, who knows? Then come the winter he's got to burn more calories to stay warm or hibernate or maybe semi-hibernate like some mammals do. So the more time it has to spend looking for food the more likely the chances for a human encounters and with those encounters then the chances go up that we'd know about them being real or not. You follow me on this?

We do know that the average adult moose of 800lbs needs about 9,770 kCal a day to maintain its body weight. This includes the energy burned getting those calories and a typical moose consumes around 70lbs of food a day. The estimated moose population in the U.S. and Canada is about 1.3 million, and they do not seem to have any problems finding food to maintain that population. Regardless if herbivore, omnivore or carnivore, daily caloric requirements is about the same by body weight for mammals, so a 800lb Sasquatch if it existed, would need about the same calories as a typical moose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember watching a show on Discovery, or maybe the History channel years ago that tried to debunk the video. One thing stuck out to me, was that they attempted to recreate the movement and walking patterns of Bigfoot with a young athlete and weren't able to do so. if I remember correctly.

Not only do I agree heret but when BFRO tried to recreate the stroll that the alleged BF/man-in-a-monkey suit took, BoBo, the man who attempted it, could not keep pace in the rugged terrain with the superimposed creature.

Are we to believe that a man in a full monkey suit can out pace a man who is not? the creature made it look so easy,and until you see BoBo really struggle to get through the terrain you have no idea just how easy the creature could navigate in what we call difficult terrain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Planet of the Apes - 1968

[media=]

[/media]

Patterson film - 1967

The Makeup Man and the Monster:

John Chambers and the Patterson Bigfoot Suit

In 1967 Chambers created the makeup for Planet of the Apes, which was released in 1968. The Patterson film was allegedly shot on October 20, 1967.

Whether Chambers created the suit or not, it is highly significant that so many makeup artists believe the film to be a hoax, and this fact will come as a shock to many Bigfoot researchers. As the first investigator to look into the allegations concerning Chambers, I have interviewed a number of the top makeup people in Hollywood, many of whom are quoted herein. Considering how many makeup people in Hollywood believe that John Chambers made the Patterson suit, it is amazing that it took this long for the case to come to our attention.

I first heard the rumor that John Chambers made the Patterson suit from anthropologist/cryptozoologist and Strange Magazine reader Alex Downs in 1992. Alex was working at the Smithsonian Institution for the summer and we spoke on several occasions. Alex told me then that he had heard about Chambers making the suit from author/producer Don Glut..........................................................................http://www.strangema...chambers17.html

Film Director John Landis Goes Public Concerning Makeup Master John Chambers' Involvement In The Famous Patterson Bigfoot Film

In 1971 Landis, then about 21 years old, directed, wrote and starred in the apeman comedy Schlock. Landis had his friend, makeup master John Chambers, act in the film as a National Guard Captain. Landis is wrong about the film stock -- it was 16mm, not 8mm -- but there is no reason that Landis should have known what the original format was.

Landis also believes that the costume was used in a David L. Wolper documentary. While this new information hardly constitutes proof, it does provide some corroboration for the Chambers/Patterson suit connection.

I have spoken with Scott Essman, the author of the extensive Chambers article in Cinefex, and asked him what he thinks of the notion that Chambers may have made the Patterson suit. "I have no doubt that Chambers did it," Essman replied.

"I have also heard from different sources that Chambers made the suit and supervised the filming." Scott Essman recalls asking Chambers whether he made the suit for the Patterson film and was in on the filming of it. Chambers answered along the lines of, "It could have been. I don't remember." The manner of Chambers' reply made Essman think that Chambers may have been trying to skirt the issue............................................http://www.strangema...ischambers.html

As I go back and read replies here I laugh.......Every single thing on this topic has been debunked ( including the so called " athlete ",. and how a person could not walk like that ) ........

This stupid cycle needs to end. How do you get people to read the facts?......How?

Google it......Hell, search it here. There is even a pic of the patterson film suit.....

BigFootFlyer.jpg

Costumes advertises the Bigfoot program that Philip Morris will appear on as part of TV Land's "Myths and Legends" series.

A Kalamazoo native says he played an unwitting role in an alleged hoax sighting of Bigfoot, a hoax explored tomorrow on TV Land.

It was 1967 when costume-maker Philip Morris got an unusual phone call from a guy asking about a gorilla costume. "We had been advertising our costumes in a lot of trade magazines, so I was used to getting phone calls, but this was different," said Morris, whose costume company Morris Costumes in Charlotte, N.C., is one of the largest in the nation.

"The man on the phone, who said his name was Roger Patterson, wanted to buy a gorilla suit and asked if it looked like a real gorilla," said Morris, a Kalamazoo Central graduate. "I told him that it looked like a Hollywood gorilla, but he said he wanted something that looked more like a Neanderthal. What he wanted was Bigfoot."

51q8VAUw2YL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg

Bigfoot! Huge, hairy, foul smelling, this legendary apelike animal continues to captivate the public’s imagination. This fascination hinges on a single piece of motion-picture film shot in northern California in 1967. For thirty-five years, Bigfoot believers have been convinced that this sixty-second piece of film proves the physical reality of Bigfoot.

But now comes a book that demolishes that belief, that produces final proof that the film footage is a hoax.

The Making of Bigfoot tells the amazing story of Roger Patterson of Yakima, Washington. A part-time rodeo rider, chronically unemployed and dying of cancer, Patterson propelled himself into short-lived fame and fortune by exploiting his obsession with the Bigfoot subject and leveraging his expertise in manipulating and conning people to pull off one of the world’s great hoaxes.

Living within two hours of Patterson’s hometown, for three years paranormal investigator and author Greg Long interviewed more than forty witnesses in Yakima who knew Patterson intimately. The voices of these witnesses, combined with facts unearthed from newspaper archives, books, and court documents, tell the real story of Roger Patterson.

Both tragic and comical, a unique slice of Americana, The Making of Bigfoot captures the testimony of a colorful cast of characters who bring to life a man and a time in the 1960s when Bigfoot strode into the American imagination, and the world embraced a myth.

So John Chmbers made the BF suit? Interesting.

a few posts above you,, "Philip Morris claimed that he made and sold the Bigfoot suit"

So we know at least ONE of them is lying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Just a passing thought about Patty's breasts: females are usually smaller than males, so maybe the breasts were there to explain why Patty was shorter than Bigfoots are usually reported to be (if she was). That would be a useful dodge if Patty was really a normal-sized guy in a suit.

On the other hand, it's interesting that the only non-human apes whose females have breasts, bonobos, are also the only other (somewhat) bipedal ape species.

Or they could have explained the slightly smaller stature of the BF as an adolecent male and not a fully developed female.

And what exactly do you call a "normal-sized guy"?? LOL - 7 foot 6?

wow

Edited by Earl.Of.Trumps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So John Chmbers made the BF suit? Interesting.

a few posts above you,, "Philip Morris claimed that he made and sold the Bigfoot suit"

So we know at least ONE of them is lying.

I believe Morris sold the suit to Patterson.

And, I am not as " educated " on this precise topic as say, Psyche is.....I am still learning a lot.

( the suit topic )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I have been reading through the pages & pages of comments. One that caught me was that the only way he would believe is if he saw a body - so in other words kill something so he could believe - IN MY OPINION I'd rather he stay a disbeliever. Why do we as a species feel it proper to kill & study everything around us. AND how many fo you that would need a body believe in the 2000 year old myth of a man dying & resurrecting & then floating up to heaven with no proof whatsoever?

Edited by VNICA
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed he can, he can make one that looks just the same, in all dimensions from a 30 second film clip. He can recreate her, just as is claimed he can.

And all because he has a template to go by and he's a costume maker...... just sayin.

What we have is a subject in a film.

Mark it down on the calander, we agree on something :lol:

All but a couple of fringe scientists can point out a dozen reasons why this is a man in a suit. All but one costume maker say it is a costume and they could do better. We have controversy because people believe in this incredibly small minority that is working on wild guesses. With regards to the film, 46 years of investigation has shown no trace of Bigfoot in the area ever again, nobody has filmed this again, nothing at all, but on the hoax side we have a man who says he wore the suit, we have a man who said he laid tracks all over the area, we have men who are not eyewitness testimony, but direct witnesses to Patterson's request for advice on said suit and we have "The Suit" recreated. It looks to me the suit has one heck of a lot more behind it than the sorry cries of "show me the suit" that support Patterson.

Yep, show me the suit. Because so far, all that is, is someones story. It more than likely is a person in a suit in the film, I'm just saying there has been no proof brought forward, to date, that that is the case.

If Morris really wanted to scam this, he could just have made a suit and left it in the weather for 6 months, and then claimed it was the original, perhaps retrieved due to a bounced check. How would you prove that wrong? And the thing would be worth a small fortune to a collector. I know of a couple of Georgia Policeman that might be more than interested in it.

Yeah a collector would pay big bucks for it... so where is it? I'm sure Mrs. Patterson wants to know where it is to.

Eyewitness testimony is decidedly shaky, these people are direct witnesses. Harvey Anderson offerred a recollection of an actual conversation, not a recollection of something blurry in the woods at distance. I see a difference there myself.

There are plenty of "direct witnesses" to all kinds of things. So I wouldn't jump up and down about it to much.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I have to sort of wonder about the really large/tall ones you hear about a lot. Ten feet plus in height and such, personally anything that freaking large is going to get noticed regardless of how stealthy it might be. I think eight feet is a stretch, and I think it could be to shock and a little fear, surprise all rolled up into one. I recall guys reporting being attacked by 200 plus VC in Nam......then you point out that they were only a ten man squad and that 200 plus VC would have eaten their cookies.

I've never seen a Bigfoot so I have no idea what their actual height is.....however? Ten feet? They could have a great career in the NBA.

Personnally I think the people who see 10 foot tall bigfoots are the same kind of people who see 2000 pound black bears, and every deer has 20 points and a rack 6 feet across. They.... embellish some, I think. It would be really hard to tell a 7 to 8 foot BF from a 10 to 11 foot BF in the woods. Especially if the person is excited, scared, or amazed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So John Chmbers made the BF suit? Interesting.

No, you should have read the link in full. Mika McCraken's Father used to work with Chambers, and commented that Chambers was capable of the work. That is how the rumour got started. McCraken Jr made it up from speculation. Landis did not help either, making stuff up, but the controversy got Landis noticed as well as Chambers.

a few posts above you,, "Philip Morris claimed that he made and sold the Bigfoot suit"

And he did.

So we know at least ONE of them is lying.

Nope, Morris said "I made the suit" and Chambers said "I wish we had made the suit, we would have done it better".

On October 26, 1997, California Bigfoot researcher and nurse Bobbie Short interviewed Chambers, then living in seclusion in a Los Angeles nursing home. The make-up artist insisted he had no prior knowledge of Roger Patterson or Bob Gimlin before their claimed Bigfoot encounter on October 20, 1967. He also denied having anything to do with creating the suit, and blamed the Hollywood rumor mill. Chambers went on to say that he was “good” but he “was not that good” to have fashioned anything nearly so convincing as the Bluff Creek Bigfoot.

LINK

Funny how proponents report Chambers as being impressed, but reporters seem to have got something different, both however say, as does the man himself, that Chambers denies being involved.

November 1, 1997

© CNI News Agency

Oscar-winning Hollywood special effects wizard, John "Planet of the Apes" Chambers, has been alleged by rumor for years to be responsible for creating a costume featured in the famous Bigfoot film footage shot by Roger Patterson in 1967. The rumor was masterminded allegedly by film director John Landis and Baker perpetrated the advancement of the rumor, which was totally false in order to promote Chambers reputation. This was then believed and subsequently noted to be supported bynumerous artists within the special effects industry.

However, new information from Brian Penikas, Creative Director for a company called Make-up and Monsters, puts to rest the theory that Chambers had any hand in the Patterson film. Penikas writes:

"Recently my crew and I were involved in a surprise 75th birthday tribute to Mr. Chambers, for which 9 of us recreated a parody skit re-enacting characters from the Ape movies. Mr. Chambers and the rest of the guests, many of whom were survivors of the Apes saga, were wonderfully surprised."

"Thanx to a quick introduction from writer Scott Essman, I had only met Mr. Chambers briefly prior to the surprise party, and the opportunity to discuss the 'suit' rumor was not high on my agenda. This past Saturday [October 25, 1997], however, the cast of the Apes birthday skit went back (sans costumes and makeup) to visit with Mr. Chambers and his wife. This was our chance to truly and finally confront Mr. Chambers about these rumors and stories about him being involved in the Patterson film project."

"Mr. Chambers told his story, on video tape, to us to set the record straight. I now have pictures of the suit that Chambers did make and you can rest assured that it is NOT the famous Patterson Bigfoot. In fact, it's not a suit AT ALL. It is an 8 foot tall plaster dummy of actor Richard 'Jaws' Keil that was built (in 4 days) as a prop for a travelling carnival to be billed as 'Bigfoot's Body' or some such sideshow attraction, and was apparently displayed in a coffin. That's all. Just a solid, 800-pound prop."

Brian's missing comment: "When pressed by Essman during the taped interview, John said, 'I can honestly say, without laughing, that I had nothing to do with that [the Patterson] film.' Then he cracked a slight smile and let out a little chuckle."

"Mr. Chambers did say (in regards to the Patterson footage) that he and his crew wished they had done it, because they would have done it differently. I believe his exact words were, jokingly, 'We could've done better.' "

Missing comment: (can't remember what I said here, but I know there was more.)

So there you have it... We can all smile with relief that the Patterson footage is still the most convincing proof of our great folk legend's existence, and that it still has not been debunked. "I want that film to be real just as much as the next guy," Penikas said in conclusion. More missing comments: (I do remember my concluding comment was a little more in-depth than this as I do not usually end a statement with an incomplete thought. I don't remember in detail what I said exactly. Something about how intriguing the whole Patterson film was to me while growing up and how cool it would be if the Patterson creature was indeed real, I think.).

I felt it necessary to at least let the viewers know that my 1997 quotes that have been copied and recopied, pasted and repasted, throughout the internet, were not complete. Whether they were intentionally "edited" to support specific views, I don't know. I do know that there was more to my original comments than many of the sites are posting.

Thank you for reading.

Brian Penikas

Member: IATSE Make-up & Hairstylists Local 706

Member :S.A.G.

Member: Academy of Television Arts & Sciences

August 18th, 2008

LINK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been reading through the pages & pages of comments. One that caught me was that the only way he would believe is if he saw a body - so in other words kill something so he could believe - IN MY OPINION I'd rather he stay a disbeliever. Why do we as a species feel it proper to kill & study everything around us. AND how many fo you that would need a body believe in the 2000 year old myth of a man dying & resurrecting & then floating up to heaven with no proof whatsoever?

I need that proof thanks :D

I think the reason people are so aloof, is because it is pretty well known this is a hoax. I do not think anyone deep down really believes in this claim. The arguments exist for the sake of argument only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And all because he has a template to go by and he's a costume maker...... just sayin.

Where did he get the template from then? Nobody else has recreated it perfectly have they?

Mark it down on the calander, we agree on something :lol:

I did not know we always disagreed, in fact I thought we got along OK, you seem much crankier than I remember you.

Yep, show me the suit. Because so far, all that is, is someones story. It more than likely is a person in a suit in the film, I'm just saying there has been no proof brought forward, to date, that that is the case.

There is direct testimony, from several parties that corroborates, which is evidence in any court and that which is more valuable then eyewitness testimony. And there is a recreation of the suit itself. All of this is indeed evidence by definition and admissible.

If the suit is expected to be reproduced, it seems fair that the footage be reproduced also.

Yeah a collector would pay big bucks for it... so where is it? I'm sure Mrs. Patterson wants to know where it is to.

Destroyed by Patterson. As I said, if Morris wanted to be underhanded the opportunity was there to make good money.

When did Mrs Patterson ask this?

There are plenty of "direct witnesses" to all kinds of things. So I wouldn't jump up and down about it to much.

Can you outline the pitfalls of direct testimony? If there are plenty, why do you think that might be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personnally I think the people who see 10 foot tall bigfoots are the same kind of people who see 2000 pound black bears, and every deer has 20 points and a rack 6 feet across. They.... embellish some, I think. It would be really hard to tell a 7 to 8 foot BF from a 10 to 11 foot BF in the woods. Especially if the person is excited, scared, or amazed.

isweari128646310634365233.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been reading through the pages & pages of comments. One that caught me was that the only way he would believe is if he saw a body - so in other words kill something so he could believe - IN MY OPINION I'd rather he stay a disbeliever. Why do we as a species feel it proper to kill & study everything around us. AND how many fo you that would need a body believe in the 2000 year old myth of a man dying & resurrecting & then floating up to heaven with no proof whatsoever?

I don't think that is true at all. Bones, an already dead bigfoot, a trapped bigfoot, even a good scat sample.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did he get the template from then? Nobody else has recreated it perfectly have they?

The template is the subject in the PGF itself. I was just pointing out that he had something to go by.

I did not know we always disagreed, in fact I thought we got along OK, you seem much crankier than I remember you.

Well I have my good days and my bad days...lol.

I was just kiddin with ya ol pal. Don't let this go to your head, but I've been an avid psyche fan for years. But yeah, I guess I've been a bit grouchy these days because I've been working and going to school. To many long days in a row. Lack of proper rest is beginning to catch up with me.

There is direct testimony, from several parties that corroborates, which is evidence in any court and that which is more valuable then eyewitness testimony. And there is a recreation of the suit itself. All of this is indeed evidence by definition and admissible.

If you want to put all your eggs in one basket, that's great. It's just as good as anything else out there I guess.

When did Mrs Patterson ask this?

As far as I know, she hadn't. My point was, I'm sure she could use some extra cash.

Can you outline the pitfalls of direct testimony?

Direct testimony is what you need for a court case, where you're sworn in and held accountable, under penalty of law, for the accuracy of the testimony given.

Direct testimony, in the context of the topic discussed, is not held accountable, under penalty of law, for the accuracy of said testimony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been reading through the pages & pages of comments. One that caught me was that the only way he would believe is if he saw a body - so in other words kill something so he could believe - IN MY OPINION I'd rather he stay a disbeliever. Why do we as a species feel it proper to kill & study everything around us. AND how many fo you that would need a body believe in the 2000 year old myth of a man dying & resurrecting & then floating up to heaven with no proof whatsoever?

Yeah, if I don't have a body or carcass then it isn't real. Too many hoaxers, fakers and straight up liars in the world now. I'd point to Slick Rick Dyer as a great example of BS artists that now infiltrate the community. But if you have a real body, then it's real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, if I don't have a body or carcass then it isn't real. Too many hoaxers, fakers and straight up liars in the world now. I'd point to Slick Rick Dyer as a great example of BS artists that now infiltrate the community. But if you have a real body, then it's real.

Would bones do it for you? It probably would for me if it went through the right channels. I believe Gigantopithecus was real and they've found very few bones from it. Mostly just teeth and jawbones.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The template is the subject in the PGF itself. I was just pointing out that he had something to go by.

But I think it's a magnificent job for a 30 second grainy film clip.

Well I have my good days and my bad days...lol.

I was just kiddin with ya ol pal. Don't let this go to your head, but I've been an avid psyche fan for years. But yeah, I guess I've been a bit grouchy these days because I've been working and going to school. To many long days in a row. Lack of proper rest is beginning to catch up with me.

Cheers mate, and thank you for the kind words. I can understand that, I have been under the pump myself this year. We all learn from each other, I know I learn much here. I hope your studies are coming along well.

If you want to put all your eggs in one basket, that's great. It's just as good as anything else out there I guess.

I just see this as a good option with more evidence and corroboration than any other claim or hypothesis.

As far as I know, she hadn't. My point was, I'm sure she could use some extra cash.

She own 49% of the film as far as I know, so she should be doing OK with the interest it has generated over the years.

Direct testimony is what you need for a court case, where you're sworn in and held accountable, under penalty of law, for the accuracy of the testimony given.

Direct testimony, in the context of the topic discussed, is not held accountable, under penalty of law, for the accuracy of said testimony.

But in this case the testimonies corroborate, which I feel is very convincing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would bones do it for you? It probably would for me if it went through the right channels. I believe Gigantopithecus was real and they've found very few bones from it. Mostly just teeth and jawbones.

Indeed, 46 years of anecdotes are wearing thin.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool thread, I found this by chance and after running through this thread see that all the old debates around the Patterson film are still going strong,

So I was laying here waxing to my wife that I don't care if a person believes the Patterson film shows an unknown creature or a man in a suit either way no one has yet to prove it 100% real or fake,

well, I guess I might not be able to say that anymore, someone posted a flyer for the TV show about how the suit was faked, how Morris came forward,

somehow I missed seeing the program, But after a quick goggle hunt I can't seem to find a place that I can watch that TV land show,

So I signed up here just to post this asking if any of you kind souls might know where I can go watch this show....

Yeah, I know true believers will never give up this is a real creature, sadly too many have based their whole belief system and reputations on this one film.....

Thanks,

Cheers,

P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an intersting little clip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.