Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
the13bats

where is just one good picture of a real BF

307 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

the13bats

I came to the last post first and figured your joke was about me calling it a "crap suit" i meant "crappy",

George, heres my long winded run down and its not meant as poking or jabbing at what you or anyone believes its what i have come to after about 45 years of interest and research, while all this is out there i hope i do bring up stuff perhaps some have not heard or considered before.

Anything i post can be checked out in a net search, but these are just my views and opinions,

First there is by definition no experts on bigfoot since they do not have a specimen to study to become an expert from, mostly the people into the bf phenomenon are guys like krantz rip or meldrum with degrees in anthropology, guys like byrne or green have no credentials that i know of, there is no phd in bigfootology,

Lets start with the film what guys study and more importantly try to enlarge are copies or copies of copies for example monsterquest was called out for mistaken information by saying they analyzed original film, not true.

The orginal is long missing,

The film had a finite amount of data, enlarging also blurs and distorts while some or many guys who claim to be experts with film analysis have claimed to blow up the images and find all kinds of things that simply were never there, its a type of embelishment for example where the guy on mq claims the bf has jaw movement i see that as a background object blurred in from going too far with his blow up, things like muscle movement ive never really seen what i see very well could be a fur suit sliding around, Bob gimlin way back would push, you could see muscle movement under the hair, he was way further away from patterson on a moving horse but he saw muscle movements? Sounds tacked on. And i believe many ran with that and saw it too even if they didnt.

So i believe a lot is being read into film grain and artifacts. I would love to hear from a photography expert here on how far can the film rather the creature be blown up before useless, not interested in "enhanced" as that is adding stuff not originally there.

3 make up artists all considered top dogs, baker, winston and smith all said it looked like a suit to them even adding critiquing like "cheap" " low end". And people like leroy blevins has proven a suit like that could be made in 67 and made cheaply, the fur looked to me like fur from suuts like on lost in space and monster robot, work if guys like chambers or morris, however p morris really messed up trying to reproduce the suit a several years back with bob Hieronimus,  it was worse than my 39.99 halloween store gorrilla costume.

Several primate experts say no known primate has light colored soles and dark palms, they question no butt crack, even the breasts do not appear like a primates, and its anatomy is a wrong mix match,

We are told the gait cannot be human, not so fast, for every analysis that results this cant be human are 3 to 5 cases showing of course it could be human a few examples, krantz hopped up and walked just like the creature across a park, knowing he hurt his case he back peddled and said he did it poorly, another example was a institute which studies children with defects, they came up with a very well reinactment of an actor walking and said it fit, meldrum was there and only said he was surprised a human could reproduce the walk, but the film isnt a human.

While i have reserves Bob Hieronimus was in the suit he walks just like the creature but before we get too carried away let me back up, the camera patterson used had different speeds, i always thought the horses and creature looked odd in their movement the speeds in question were 24 fps what patterson had said he normally filmed at or 18 fps which after claiming 16 fps which that camera didnt have it was agreed patterson misread the setting, and his camera was set to 18 that day, grover krantz who some do consider an expert said for the gait to be non human the camera had to be on 18 fps not 24 which Patterson normally filmed at, if it was filmed at 24 then it could and likely was a man so krantz quickly backed up and said it had to have been set to 18 fps and patrerson agreed, We only have pattersons vauge memory for what speed it was actually set on, i would have thought photography experts could determine film speed after the fact but i havent seen that posted.

As far as "experts" go meldrum was sure snow walker was a real creature he said his calculations showed a 9 foot creature and he compared it to the pgf as proof, it was a hoax made to promote a tv show so not only can and is meldrum wrong he also isnt objective he bet the farm on snow walker and crapped out, i cant help but see his same blind arrogance with the patterson film, meldrum is also supposedly well educated with bi pedal locomotion yet jimmy chilcut claimed dermal ridges meant nothing to meldrum until he clued him in.

Creature size question, since no amount of postering will give exactly where  patterson filmed from plus he was running along with and towards the creature there is no way to know how far it was from patterson so any estimates on height are nothing more than unscientific guesses,  to me size doesnt really matter if its a real creature who cares if its 5ft10 or 10ft5?

Patterson, his run down ill just leave off but keep in mind he was arrested for stealing the camera he used, never provided the negatives for study and the orginal is missing,

If anyone has a piece of expert Proof i missed please include it and if you are a believer in bigfoot please reconsider basing that belief solely on this film.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimalists
5 hours ago, Night Walker said:

37tdc.png

Not a photo expert but that gorilla aka Bigfoot looks like it was photoshopped into the frame. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gaden
16 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I don't know how you could possibly determine that it's a man in a crap suit. I am more influenced by professionals I have heard that evaluated the film.

 If you would look at the film with an open mind, maybe you could see how fake and one piece the butt looks. Also look at the 'breasts' and tell me if those really look like a primates'. And, just for a matter of conversation, how would you explain away the disappearance of the original film, which would have revealed so much? Consider this: If this encounter was a hoax, the original film would (probably) have proven it. If it was a real encounter, the original film would have supported it. NOW, why do you suppose it disappeared? 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
22 minutes ago, Gaden said:

 If you would look at the film with an open mind, maybe you could see how fake and one piece the butt looks.

As I said, I am more impressed by the anatomical experts that have commented on this.

24 minutes ago, Gaden said:

 Also look at the 'breasts' and tell me if those really look like a primates'. 

LOL....that is definitely not my specialized area of expertise. I couldn't even get to second base on Valentine's day.

25 minutes ago, Gaden said:

  And, just for a matter of conversation, how would you explain away the disappearance of the original film, which would have revealed so much? Consider this: If this encounter was a hoax, the original film would (probably) have proven it. If it was a real encounter, the original film would have supported it. NOW, why do you suppose it disappeared? 

I haven't followed that controversy but years of experience makes me more skeptical of skeptics than serious proponents actually.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gaden
1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

As I said, I am more impressed by the anatomical experts that have commented on this.

LOL....that is definitely not my specialized area of expertise. I couldn't even get to second base on Valentine's day.

I haven't followed that controversy but years of experience makes me more skeptical of skeptics than serious proponents actually.

 So, in other words, "Ya got nuttin"

 What about the anatomical experts that say it looks like a man in a suit? And, if your first thought is that you know of none, that would figure, because you are just that closed minded.

 Have youn ever been to a zoo and have you never seen ape mammaries? 

 Years of experience? I'm probably older than you, if you are referring simply to age. And MY years of experience tells me this whole scenario is rife with BS. 

 If you haven't followed that controversy, than you have no experience at all

https://www.livescience.com/24598-bigfoot.html

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gaden

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
21 minutes ago, Gaden said:

 So, in other words, "Ya got nuttin"

I consider the opinions of anatomical experts. I consider that more than 'nuttin'.

I also consider debunking sources.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
2 hours ago, Gaden said:

 If you would look at the film with an open mind, maybe you could see how fake and one piece the butt looks. Also look at the 'breasts' and tell me if those really look like a primates'. And, just for a matter of conversation, how would you explain away the disappearance of the original film, which would have revealed so much? Consider this: If this encounter was a hoax, the original film would (probably) have proven it. If it was a real encounter, the original film would have supported it. NOW, why do you suppose it disappeared? 

Thanks, this is the type discussion and interaction im here for,

A person either follows a subject they have interest in or they dont but to come to any conclusion based on their lack of infomation isnt anything i take serious. Close minded and agnorant might dance together but being agnorant to information out there is sad to say the least.

I do listen to the so called experts but an expert who in my book needs the schooling to back it up and obviously an expert in human anatomy is not an expert in the anatomy of an alleged creature that has never been closely, clearly seen much less had its actual anatomy studied, i have seen like with meldrum a fellow with schooling in anthropology,  he has made mistakes over and over. Sure the attention seeking experts say the film creature is real however far more "experts" call the pgf creature a man in a suit.

So this just lets a person deside which camp of experts they agree with since experts are devided, so to come to a definitive conclusion from this one piece of contradicting information, which isnt evidence is short sighted.

The film, the butt doesnt look like a human or primate bottocks, it lacks a clef or "crack" and more looks like a diaper, check out the suit leroy blevins made, he nails it and calls it a "diaper butt"  the pgf creatures diaper butt doesnt blend, flow or even fit with the torso or legs no degree in anatomy needed to see that.

The breasts, first the huge irony, patterson had a self published book, and he drew his idea of bf and it had odd  sagging human type mammary, and what do you know the flim creature has them too, and one need not be an expert to look at a couple pictures of gorillas,  chimps , to see they are placed wrong for real anatomy but right where they fit to a costume, so patterson perfers female bfs and happens to film a solo female, too much of a reach for me.

Patterson and the film, i recall john green sayinng patterson a rodeo cowboy wasnt capable of faking the suit, the film, why do some people underestimate to the point of insult the ability of in this case a hoaxer, Patterson was far more than just a cowboy and very much did have the ability to pull this off, he was a very clever make it happen type guy.

Grover krantz argued that he asked patterson technical questions about the creatures locomotion that patterson didnt according to krantz understand, i say so what? Patterson nor krantz for that matter were experts in the field of human locomotion which cant be applied to an alleged creature anyway, since patterson never was even sure of his fps camera speed or when and how he got it developed why would i take him at his word on anything?

i already mentioned in my other long winder the issues with film speed and now the issues gaden brings up, not only is the orginal film and negatives missing but no one knows why just more patterson mystic, even courts had to decide ownership of the film, of course if it was around it just might prove indisputably the film is a fake, they might be rehearsals, costume fittings even a blooper reel, okay, im reaching a bit, but there was a huge flack at the time as no one involved could even say when it was developed, they changed the story over and over and that is still in question.

Patterson wasnt satan he was a con man, he cheated many people i read he even defaulted on the hospital treating him for terminal cancer, he was broke he wanted his wife taken care of he needed this and got it akin to winning a lotto, had things lined up better like the original film was here not lost in a veil of mystery and he hadnt done things like getting arrested for stealing the camera, his lack of credibility wouldnt be yet another nail in the coffin of this being a hoax.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

Gaden,

I was under the impression that aside from a few "experts for personal attention"  its basically accepted that the pgf creatures gait can be done by a human and isnt anything special or unique,

My wife rolls her eyes at me when we are out and i will say tina look at that chap walking across the street and she replies, "yeah, yeah, the patterson guy, walks just like it"

And tina happens to have a PhD in applied psychology, but shes not a bigfoot expect by a mile, and no one ever will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

The whole bigfoot business turns on the need for some people, to believe it might exist. Where that needs come from, is about the only aspect of the subject that interests me.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
22 minutes ago, Habitat said:

The whole bigfoot business turns on the need for some people, to believe it might exist. Where that needs come from, is about the only aspect of the subject that interests me.

In a way that might be the biggest question related to things like bigfoot, alien aductions and many paranormal, weird phenomenon  topics etc,

Sadly i do not believe the answer is all that epic and perhaps a bit boring and just has to do with the need to be part of something bigger, more special in the minds of some believers,  you  know like when asked for proof some get really egomaniacal off the deep end, they just know they are enlighten and we are stupid for being blind and we arent allowed to know, ( note contradictions)

I find ego plays a big role in true belivers, perhaps some are born that way or life did it to them,

I grew up loving the unknown, a good mystery but my drive was to solve it,  i wasnt going into it with a conceived notion, not my fault nothing is beyond prosaic when studied, solved,

i would love for example to be proven bf is real but each day that passes i become more convinced that isnt the case.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
3 minutes ago, the13bats said:

In a way that might be the biggest question related to things like bigfoot, alien aductions and many paranormal, weird phenomenon  topics etc,

Sadly i do not believe the answer is all that epic and perhaps a bit boring and just has to do with the need to be part of something bigger, more special in the minds of some believers,  you  know like when asked for proof some get really egomaniacal off the deep end, they just know they are enlighten and we are stupid for being blind and we arent allowed to know, ( note contradictions)

I find ego plays a big role in true belivers, perhaps some are born that way or life did it to them,

I grew up loving the unknown, a good mystery but my drive was to solve it,  i wasnt going into it with a conceived notion, not my fault nothing is beyond prosaic when studied, solved,

i would love for example to be proven bf is real but each day that passes i become more convinced that isnt the case.

 

It baffles me. Is there something "romantic" about the idea that some human-like  beast is living in splendid isolation from the  hurly-burly of humanity ? Beats me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
8 minutes ago, Habitat said:

It baffles me. Is there something "romantic" about the idea that some human-like  beast is living in splendid isolation from the  hurly-burly of humanity ? Beats me.

For some, yes, its mystetious, unknown unproven, feral, beastly   that can be very romanic for some.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
openozy
5 hours ago, Habitat said:

It baffles me. Is there something "romantic" about the idea that some human-like  beast is living in splendid isolation from the  hurly-burly of humanity ? Beats me.

I think its some peoples desire to connect with our hairy ancestors,like their going home to mother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
esoteric_toad

BF is just an example of humanities ongoing myth of wild-men. Nearly every culture, worldwide, has them. It seems to be built into the human psyche, like the boogeyman. It doesn't make it real, it's just interesting that we seem to have a needed to believe in "monsters" even today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_man

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Night Walker

35c07b5.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gaden
13 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I consider the opinions of anatomical experts. I consider that more than 'nuttin'.

I also consider debunking sources.

 And yet, many anatomical experts agree that a human can walk and look like the PG image, why do you not consider them? 

Give me an example of a debunking source you would consider unreliable.

Give me an example of an anatomical expert that says the PG film must be of an unknown hominid?

I have a serious question... do you believe that unicorns, faeries, or elves exist? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gaden
1 hour ago, Night Walker said:

35c07b5.png

 Do you seriously call this a good picture?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
35 minutes ago, Gaden said:

 And yet, many anatomical experts agree that a human can walk and look like the PG image, why do you not consider them? 

Give me an example of a debunking source you would consider unreliable.

Give me an example of an anatomical expert that says the PG film must be of an unknown hominid?

I have a serious question... do you believe that unicorns, faeries, or elves exist? 

Like i have said i have studied the pgf case at least 40 years and the thing is you show me a so called expert who says its real i show you one who says no, its a man in a suit, it can go on and on,

I do not use any one or two opinions which that is all most info on this is, i bundle it up, i have to in this case, getting past opinion and fewing facts it falls apart fairly quickly for me but thats just it with this case each of us is our own expert,

The big question can it be definitely proven real or fake with what we have? No, not really, to prove it real i need a bigfoot body that matches the films creature and even other blobsquatches dont, be that as it may to prove it fake i need the suit or gimlin to admit, ahem. Confess its a hoax, perhaps some more film could prove it fake but not real,

So for now it is a dead end and i will say man in cheap fur suit until more data surfaces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trelane
14 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I consider the opinions of anatomical experts. I consider that more than 'nuttin'.

I also consider debunking sources.

I think you mean you consider anatomical experts that support your view. Clearly, you ignore others.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
1 hour ago, Gaden said:

 And yet, many anatomical experts agree that a human can walk and look like the PG image, why do you not consider them? 

Give me an example of a debunking source you would consider unreliable.

Give me an example of an anatomical expert that says the PG film must be of an unknown hominid?

 

You might not be familiar with how the term 'consider' is being used. I listen to all sides and arguments then form my best judgment. I think the PG film is more likely to be real than fake. And when listening to sources I also consider if they have an apparent emotional like or dislike of a position as I know that may skew what I am going to hear.

1 hour ago, Gaden said:

 

I have a serious question... do you believe that unicorns, faeries, or elves exist? 

Unicorns ….No. Faeries and elves are vague terms but may have legitimacy in etheric beings. Etheric beings are in a plane of reality closest to our home physical plane. Such beings can temporarily materialize to the level of being seen. That is my best considered opinion on your 'serious' question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
50 minutes ago, Trelane said:

I think you mean you consider anatomical experts that support your view. Clearly, you ignore others.

 

Apparently the second line in my quote went unread: 'I also consider debunking sources.' . The concept of 'considering' both sides and then leaning one way or the other as more likely apparently was missed  in your reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gaden
5 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

You might not be familiar with how the term 'consider' is being used. I listen to all sides and arguments then form my best judgment. I think the PG film is more likely to be real than fake. And when listening to sources I also consider if they have an apparent emotional like or dislike of a position as I know that may skew what I am going to hear.

Unicorns ….No. Faeries and elves are vague terms but may have legitimacy in etheric beings. Etheric beings are in a plane of reality closest to our home physical plane. Such beings can temporarily materialize to the level of being seen. That is my best considered opinion on your 'serious' question.

I am quite familiar with the term 'considered' and how you used it, I'm simply calling BS to your statement, as I do not believe that even for a second you have considered the non-believer side. These last few posts are typical of you, you show how you are ready to believe in anything and every thing out of the norm, always stating that you have 'considered' both sides. And yet, you never give any facts, never offer links to research papers, and in fact never offer anything other than "I believe". 

 How about this? Give us some concrete evidence of the existence of Bigfoot, faeries or elves. Nothing anecdotal, pictures (good, clear pictures), bones, fossils, hair, feces, or research papers by qualified scientists. 

 I would also like to know why you don't believe unicorns exist, and I am totally serious when I ask this question. Tell us why you think they do not exist.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
5 minutes ago, Gaden said:

I am quite familiar with the term 'considered' and how you used it, I'm simply calling BS to your statement, as I do not believe that even for a second you have considered the non-believer side. These last few posts are typical of you, you show how you are ready to believe in anything and every thing out of the norm, always stating that you have 'considered' both sides. And yet, you never give any facts, never offer links to research papers, and in fact never offer anything other than "I believe". 

I was just replying to an emotionally snippy post from you and not making a research presentation. The bigfoot debate has been done many times before and I do not claim to have any new information to supply here. My opinions come from consideration of all I have heard on anything that might relate to the subject and I have not put together a research presentation. My involvement in this thread was just to present what I felt was 'one good picture of a real bigfoot'. The rest of my involvement was answering  my critics. 

11 minutes ago, Gaden said:

 

 How about this? Give us some concrete evidence of the existence of Bigfoot, faeries or elves. Nothing anecdotal, pictures (good, clear pictures), bones, fossils, hair, feces, or research papers by qualified scientists. 

The question I would put back to you is; 'who would be the judge of the evidence?'. I already know it to be an endless debate before I start.

14 minutes ago, Gaden said:

 I would also like to know why you don't believe unicorns exist, and I am totally serious when I ask this question. Tell us why you think they do not exist.

I have not heard what I consider to be quality evidence for their existence. And with all these things, it is my best 'all things considered' position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

Ironically didnt they find some goat type animal with one horn in Asia?

If you post a pic that is "good" in your mind you have to explain why just saying because an expert says so is empty.

I guess when i parrot "experts" it doesnt count,  lol.

at least a true believer like meldrum who some down right worship as an expert will state why he believes what it does, ill have to paraphrase but i loved the debate where meldrum claimed the pgf creature had a muscle rupture on its upper leg and the other expert said, sure, could be that or could be the guy in the suit left his keys in his pocket,

How about dick smith making fun of the flat white feet saying he would have painted that to look like the bottom of a real apes foot then i believe it was meldrum again who ranted on and on why bigfoot would have a white flat foot, ( even thought no primate does ) and when hes showing a track cast he points out the ball, heel, arch etc , which is it?

So, who has a list of the so called bigfoot experts the ones who say the patterson film is a real creature post a list of names please.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.