where is just one good picture of a real BF

[Guyver]

13 hours ago, stereologist said:

So you admit it

Sure.  But you looked at this picture and said you couldn't see muscles in the leg.  You said, and I quote...."Then he points out a frame and says something like look at the muscles in the leg. I don't see anything that appears to muscles..."  I mean, even if you're convinced that this picture is a man wearing a costume of some type, it seems completely obvious to me that this "person" has enormous legs.  These are the kind of legs that Earl Campbell would consider enormous.  So yes, that does seem really strange to me.  

[Guyver]

14 hours ago, the13bats said:

If i thought that applied to any of us who simply do not agreee with your opinions i would call, "pot meet kettle" but no, you are trying to apply to us what you are guilty of.

 

 

You know what's weird?  I think every time you give a like on any one of my comments you use the hysterical smiley.  You know that means you're laughing at the response right?  So, everytime you read a post of mine, you're laughing out loud hysterically?  That's crazy. 

I mean.....sure......I think I can be funny on occasion....but it seems you fall to pieces every time you get quoted by me.   IDK.....just an observation.  

[stereologist]

14 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Sure.  But you looked at this picture and said you couldn't see muscles in the leg.  You said, and I quote...."Then he points out a frame and says something like look at the muscles in the leg. I don't see anything that appears to muscles..."  I mean, even if you're convinced that this picture is a man wearing a costume of some type, it seems completely obvious to me that this "person" has enormous legs.  These are the kind of legs that Earl Campbell would consider enormous.  So yes, that does seem really strange to me.  

Or the suit is loose. Or the suit is padded.

I don't see muscles. I see an overall shape, but not muscles. I see a face that looks like someone wearing a balaclava. I see a diaper butt. I see a suit that looks like a suit.

[Gaden]

7 hours ago, Night Walker said:

Is that what you call a reasonable debunking?
...

S

This picture speaks for itself, it actually needs no debunking. If you want to call it a good picture, then there is nothing to discuss.

[Guyver]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

Or the suit is loose. Or the suit is padded.

I don't see muscles. I see an overall shape, but not muscles. I see a face that looks like someone wearing a balaclava. I see a diaper butt. I see a suit that looks like a suit.

I understand how you would see it that way.  It's such an old film, not really good quality at all to begin with, and copied so many times, etc.  Plus, since you believe that it's not possible for a large bipedal hominid of the sasquatch type to actually exist in the first place, your mind automatically defaults to a man in a suit everytime you see it.  I get it.  

I can think of a couple of people who have opinions different from yours.  The first is the man who actually watched the creature....Bob Gimlin.  He observed the creature from about a hundred feet away.  He commented on how muscular it was, and it reminded him of a quarter horse because it was so well muscled.

Then there's this guy who is actually a professional at making fake suits like the one that would have been required to reproduce that film.  Fortunately, he had the opportunity to actually view, and analyze a first generation copy of the original film itself.  Apparently, he's the only person (or one of the very few people) who was granted permission to work on the film by Roger Patterson's wife.  I found a clip on youtube for anyone who wishes to see it.  He came a different conclusion; that the creature in the film is most likely not a man in a suit - in his professional opinion.  

 

 

[stereologist]

10 minutes ago, Guyver said:

I understand how you would see it that way.  It's such an old film, not really good quality at all to begin with, and copied so many times, etc.  Plus, since you believe that it's not possible for a large bipedal hominid of the sasquatch type to actually exist in the first place, your mind automatically defaults to a man in a suit everytime you see it.  I get it.  

I can think of a couple of people who have opinions different from yours.  The first is the man who actually watched the creature....Bob Gimlin.  He observed the creature from about a hundred feet away.  He commented on how muscular it was, and it reminded him of a quarter horse because it was so well muscled.

Then there's this guy who is actually a professional at making fake suits like the one that would have been required to reproduce that film.  Fortunately, he had the opportunity to actually view, and analyze a first generation copy of the original film itself.  Apparently, he's the only person (or one of the very few people) who was granted permission to work on the film by Roger Patterson's wife.  I found a clip on youtube for anyone who wishes to see it.  He came a different conclusion; that the creature in the film is most likely not a man in a suit - in his professional opinion.  

 

 

It is a film of low quality and I know you want to believe in BF so you look at the film and see muscles where there is not indication of muscles. 

When films are of such poor quality it is odd that anyone would even suggest they see muscles or muscle flexion. 

Bob Gimlin does have an opinion that differs with me. It is an opinion that people are easily fooled. He even proved it by making this film of someone in a suit. He added some commentary to trick people into believing his story.

There is also the story of Morris who sold the suit to film makers so that they could trick people.

[stereologist]

If I were making a hoax I'd sure as heck build it up with some fine presentations like

"Go hairy creature that is not a man in a suit."

"Oh sure, go hairy creature. Please look at the fine muscles and pay no attention to that droopy diaper butt."

"Yeah you betcha big lady. Love those flat feet of yours without a heel and cute little toes. Crowds are gonna love ya. You bet."

[Gaden]

4 hours ago, Guyver said:

I understand how you would see it that way.  It's such an old film, not really good quality at all to begin with, and copied so many times, etc.  Plus, since you believe that it's not possible for a large bipedal hominid of the sasquatch type to actually exist in the first place, your mind automatically defaults to a man in a suit everytime you see it.  I get it.  

I can think of a couple of people who have opinions different from yours.  The first is the man who actually watched the creature....Bob Gimlin.  He observed the creature from about a hundred feet away.  He commented on how muscular it was, and it reminded him of a quarter horse because it was so well muscled.

Then there's this guy who is actually a professional at making fake suits like the one that would have been required to reproduce that film.  Fortunately, he had the opportunity to actually view, and analyze a first generation copy of the original film itself.  Apparently, he's the only person (or one of the very few people) who was granted permission to work on the film by Roger Patterson's wife.  I found a clip on youtube for anyone who wishes to see it.  He came a different conclusion; that the creature in the film is most likely not a man in a suit - in his professional opinion.  

 

 

 I understand why you would see it that way, you want to believe so much that your mind has closed to any other possibility.

If I think the film is a hoax, then I'm certainly going to believe Gimlin was a part of it.

 I can think of a couple of people who have opinions different from yours. The first is the man who may have been in the suit...Bob Heronimus. His testimony is every bit as valid as Gimlin's

 Then there's the guy who is actually a professional at making fake suits like the one that would have been required to reproduce that film.   Fortunately, he had the opportunity to actually view, and analyze a first generation copy of the original film itself. his words were "I could have done it better"

 Answer these questions; Why can we not view the original? In your own opinion, if Patterson perpetrated a hoax, would it be in his interest to make a copy of the film, eliminating certain incriminating parts,and then destroying the original?

 If it were NOT a hoax, wouldn't the original at least support your story?

[the13bats]

Bigfoot DNA or lack thereof,

When i say "bigfoot" a am refering to the continental USA, i will try to use the regional name of the alleged creature in this post.

The yeti identity for all intents and purposes is solved DNA results from respected scientist dr brain sykes proved what the monks knew all along, the same conclusion Reinhold Messer came to, yeti is a type of bear.

I really liked the fact that several samples given to sykes the source said this is not a bear this is yeti, but it tested as bear.

Bigfoot DNA is a bit different Melba Ketchum ( please research her yourself ) really hurt serious unbised DNA work like sykes was doing , her results all convoluted and botched, weird stuff like dog human dna mixes, bigfoot human hybridization etc. she published it in her self serving pseudoscience journal, and she was out for profits likely only meldrum is in her camp by this point.

Dr. Todd Disotell ( i respect his work ) wasnt impressed,

https://doubtfulnews.com/2012/12/dna-experts-view-of-the-ketchum-bigfoot-dna-claim/

Dr sykes did test a lot of alleged bigfoot DNA and of course every source was adamant theirs was really bigfoot in that group was Justin Smeja who claimed to have shot and wounded an adult and killed its young bigfoot,

Smeja was the most vocal and you can find his different versions of his story on google but his claim to DNA was a piece of meat from the creature not taken that day of the alleged shooting but rather weeks later they went to the site and dug the meat up.

His other DNA was from the dying bigfoot bleeding all over his boots, this will be a good place for me in interject i place smeja right there with janice carter as far as credibility goes,

Sykes seemed downright heavy hearted when he told smeja the meat was bear and no blood at all could be found on his boots. That one stood out to me as i had a pair of slip on canvas vans shoes that i stepped on a nail that cut the side of my foot, the shoes remained blood stained until i wore them out.

I also read on a forum someone claiming to be smeja and his mystery buddy said they actually do have meat cut from the young bigfoots body, but the mystery friend would rather his buddy smeja look like a delusional nut than to supply that sample to an unbiased lab like Sykes or disotell, i have zero idea if that were really who they claimed to be on that forum.

The rest of the bigfoot samples tested as cows, deer, porcupines, bears, and other known animals.

If bigfoot was real it would leave DNA and lots of it but none has been found yet and of course if the creature isnt real it wont leave DNA to be found.

[Guyver]

4 hours ago, Gaden said:

 I understand why you would see it that way, you want to believe so much that your mind has closed to any other possibility.

If I think the film is a hoax, then I'm certainly going to believe Gimlin was a part of it.

 I can think of a couple of people who have opinions different from yours. The first is the man who may have been in the suit...Bob Heronimus. His testimony is every bit as valid as Gimlin's

 Then there's the guy who is actually a professional at making fake suits like the one that would have been required to reproduce that film.   Fortunately, he had the opportunity to actually view, and analyze a first generation copy of the original film itself. his words were "I could have done it better"

 Answer these questions; Why can we not view the original? In your own opinion, if Patterson perpetrated a hoax, would it be in his interest to make a copy of the film, eliminating certain incriminating parts,and then destroying the original?

 If it were NOT a hoax, wouldn't the original at least support your story?

You know, it would be really simple to find out if Bob Heronimus was the guy in the suit....even if that poor old broke down cowboys buddy, Bob Gimlin actually was able to be duped, or even in the possibility that he was a part of it.

You could check his measurements.

If you examined that link I provided, then you saw the very rational, logical, and scientifically verifiable argument that only a very small percentage of the human population could pull off being the man in the suit  because of proportional analysis.  The film subjects proportions can be examined and compared to that of Bob Heronimus.

Now....on to my personal opinion....since you decided to copy what was said earlier about my wishing to believe.  Yes, it is true...I do wish to believe that sasquatch exists, and I’d like to be proven correct in my decision to believe that the creature could exist.

But I’m also a guy who believes in science, and venerates logic and wisdom.  So, I’m willing to admit that it is possible that the entire thing is some kind of corporate human delusion and the film is a fake.  So, IDK if sasquatch exists or not for sure, and I don’t know if the film is genuine for sure, but it was something I felt was worthy of looking into.

[Guyver]

13bats, you literally just did it again.  You crazy.  

[Guyver]

8 hours ago, stereologist said:

It is a film of low quality and I know you want to believe in BF so you look at the film and see muscles where there is not indication of muscles. 

When films are of such poor quality it is odd that anyone would even suggest they see muscles or muscle flexion. 

Bob Gimlin does have an opinion that differs with me. It is an opinion that people are easily fooled. He even proved it by making this film of someone in a suit. He added some commentary to trick people into believing his story.

There is also the story of Morris who sold the suit to film makers so that they could trick people.

Would you mind explaining the evidence that led you to believe that sweet man was part of the bigfoot controversy?

[the13bats]

Guyver, dont troll,

when i click the emotion faces its a few second response to my gut reaction to reading a reply, if i find it good i hit "like" if i find it even better i hit "thanks" like when it makes a good point, if i find it silly, asinine, poorly thought out i will click "laugh" but i assure you im not rolling around hysterically laughing and for you to think so makes me wonder about your stability, if it greatly which obviously it does upsets you for me to post laughs at things you post dont be bashful just say so and ill try not to,  also you base your believe of bigfoot on the patterson film but call me crazy for using smilies...um, okay

 

Bob gimlim seems like a kind fellow never met him, his buddy Patterson was a con man lots of proof of that out there,  Bob Heronimus knew them both and lived a few houses down from gimlin, hes not just some stranger out of the night and i doubt anyone can deny  Bob Heronimus does walk like the film subject, but lots of people do, Heronimus for what its worth passed a lie detector, has gimlin? Not that i can find.

Many institutes that study gait have used their markers on people filmed them and said this could be a man in a suit.

The issue is no one will ever know speeds and angles and distance of patterson and the creature while filming so there is no way to do correct proportional analysis of the subject in the film.

Bill munns while a bit unjustifiable pompous for my tastes seems nice too, he seems the go to for many documentaries as the better special effects make up men are too busy on feature films, he worked on a fav film return of the living dead so i give him cool points there.

As far as i know munns is the only make up man who thinks the subject in the film is not a man in a suit, a make up man is no expert in unknown creature mechanics, however since you bring him up top make up men like smith. Winston, baker all said its a man in a suit,

Also monsterquest claimed to use orginal pgf but it wasnt it was copies, i was under the inpression the original by definition there is one was lost, do you have documentation that munns used the orginal, which doesnt make a difference except it persents a huge hurdling question, why would orginal film be supplied to a lower end make up man and not accredited scientists, perhaps because munns is a true believer and they fear an unbiased  scientist will find something fishy....hum.

 

[the13bats]

34 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Would you mind explaining the evidence that led you to believe that sweet man was part of the bigfoot controversy?

Have you met him is he sweet?  he has a lot of reasons including a possible promise to a dying friend why to keep the hoax going....

[the13bats]

I just nadded this from wiki, to me it might just contradict munns used original film and is sorta confirmed by munns himself, i would need very well documented proof munns used real film and if so why real scientists were given it too.

However, tell me two things, why/how did Rene Dahinden have and win rights to it and why was gimlin "bought out"

Was it that dahinden bought out gimlin, sounds that way, and a hoax isnt worth as much as alleged real, 

Now that dahinden has passed who owns his share?

 

Quote

Legal status
Edit

Greg Long reports that a 1978 legal "settlement gave Dahinden controlling rights—51 percent of the film footage, 51 percent of video cassette rights, and 100 percent of all 952 frames of the footage. Patty Patterson had 100 percent of all TV rights and 49 percent rights in the film footage. Dahinden had ... bought out Gimlin, who himself had received nothing from Patterson; and Mason and Radford, promised part of the profits by Patterson, had nothing to show for their investment or efforts."[151]

Frame 352, the well-known look-back image, is in the public domain, having long been reprinted by others without protest by the copyright holder.[152]
Ownership of the physical films
Edit
First reel
Edit

The whereabouts of the original is unknown, although there are several speculations as to what happened to it.

    Patterson had ceded ownership of the original to American National Enterprises, which went bankrupt a few years after his death in 1972. Thereafter, Greg Long writes, "Peregrine Entertainment bought the company. Then Peregrine was bought by Century Group of Los Angeles. When Century Group went bankrupt in 1996, Byrne rushed to Deerfield Beach, Florida, where an accountant was auctioning off the company's assets to pay creditors. The company's films were in storage in Los Angeles, but a search failed to turn up the Patterson footage."[136]
    In 2008, Chris Murphy thought a Florida lawyer might have the film, not realizing until later that the lawyer had contacted the Los Angeles storage company that held it, and that it had responded that the film was not in the location the lawyer's records indicated.[153]
    Bill Munns writes that it was "last seen by researchers René Dahinden and Bruce Bonney in 1980, when René convinced the film vault [in Southern California] holding it to release it to him". He made Cibachrome images from it. Sometime between then and 1996, the film went missing from its numbered location in the vault.[154]

At least seven copies were made of the original film.[155][156]

Bill Munns listed four other missing reels of derivative works that would be helpful to film analysts.[157]

 

Edited February 20, 2019 by the13bats

[Night Walker]

13 hours ago, Gaden said:

This picture speaks for itself, it actually needs no debunking. If you want to call it a good picture, then there is nothing to discuss.

The picture spoke to you of its own volition? That's so cute...

Last one:

[the13bats]

night walker,

I like it, no, im very skeptical as it appears the subject and background do not match that the subject was added,

However im curious where the subject is from it has a nice organic quailty and is light years better looking than the subject in the patterson film, can you please give details on this....

[Night Walker]

If a camera is panning along with a moving subject the surrounding area/background becomes burred while the subject remains largely in focus. Like this sequence I took of a "screaming woman" bird with an ancient camera phone:

Previous pics: North American subject. Subject not edited-in to my understanding. Thoughts? I am interesting in how others evaluate photographic evidence of unknown provenance...

Edited February 20, 2019 by Night Walker
clarity

[Echoes]

Is this a trick question? 

[the13bats]

Night walker,

You kind of paint me in a corner when you say,

Quote

 I am interesting in how others evaluate photographic evidence of unknown provenance...

Provenance is king in a case like this.

Perhaps im not being fair but when i see a picture for the first time i have things like added to, CGI blobsquatch run thru my head, i have to at least get past obvious hoax traits.

I read the back story and gauge does it help or hurt the pic,  since you offer none, it hurts i have to go only on the pic, which hurts greatly for me, because you know more than you care to share which adds that con, hoax factor to me  your first two pics did have that subject added to image feel to me, but didnt grab my interest as the last shot did, i have to judge all 3 as a set.

The subject has odd contrast on its upper body and the legs cut off rather abruptly with what looks like a green "grass" or whatever overlayed from left side to the tree on the right, it doesnt flow right, the color doesnt blend with fore or back ground green and the dividing lines are very defined, it doesnt look like the subject is behind taller green hiding its lower legs but rather bad photoshopping,

Perhaps im wrong and the subject is there in the shot sadly lack of resolution to see any good usable detail,

Im 6 foot 2 and could without much effort don my 39.99 halloween store gorrilla suit and with the help a photography buff who knows how to get that diuble blur and not far from my back yard make an image comparable to this.

Since i dont have any story on this i have to speculate but a cameraman this close to their lotto ticket who doesnt chase after the subject to get better pics or gets killed by a wild animal who doesnt want to be messed with is another nail its hoaxed,

And since as far as i know these pics are only on here, another nail they are hoaxed, however send them to meldrum he will likely debate every word i said.

[Night Walker]

Good points and I agree, Bats. It looks too good to be true... and with so little details - that's not an ideal combination. It does appear photoshopped but is it possible to demonstrate that without the original? At this stage I think it would be premature to take the image to Dr. Meldrum...

It is nice to see an unknown image of our subject with reasonable clarity for a change, though, right? Definitely not a bear or pareidolia...

__

PapaGeorge - you have some strong ideas on the subject - I'd be interested in your opinion on the matter. What do you think? 

 

[the13bats]

I believe from what ive seen of george he will rate it high.

My remark about meldrum is more funning at him seeing bigfoot everywhere.

Im told that while the eyes, common sense might say photoshop to some of us to proof its shopped can be more difficult, ive also seen some pretty savvy people in photo analysis like bruce Maccabee has supported later proven hoaxes,

The images you posted are not a bear, pareidolia, or tarzan, and while not really a blobsquatch there still isnt enough there for me not to apply occhans razor and go with hoax.

I do believe that in the interest of your own credibilty you tell the full story, its not subtile you are holding out.

Ps, if you made the pics, nice work and i want to discuse the subject, because like i said it really makes patty look more like a man in a suit that real creature to me

 

[stereologist]

8 hours ago, Guyver said:

Would you mind explaining the evidence that led you to believe that sweet man was part of the bigfoot controversy?

He's the G in pgf

[Night Walker]

Not my pics but I came across them online several years ago and I have always found them to be interesting. I know more - don't think it was taken by some dear sweet man - but maybe not the FULL story as I, personally, wouldn't define them a hoax. However, I genuinely would like to hear from other perspectives here. These pics will not convince anyone of anything they're not already convinced about and, with the lack of objective data, there's no right and wrong within differing opinions. Forthright discussion from a variety of perspectives might also pick up on something missed or overlooked...

[the13bats]

Night walker,

You found them online? Where who posted them? For them to have made such an impact on you im sure you should have that basic info.

This will sound a bit snide but i do not have time for games, you are still not giving up everything you know, you say you know more, you agreed with my rundown saying likely hoax but now say you do not believe hoax,

If you sincerely desire forthright discussion start with all the info you have, no holding back, otherwise i feel you are playing around and im done.

See how a backstory does have a big impact on me, in this case you and how you are acting is the backstory, so i will say hoax and not sold you arent involved.

Lets see where this goes.