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 -

Experts use AI and Computer vision to determine if the famous 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film is real


jethrofloyd
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:


Somewhat of a mystery here is how no one back at that time duplicated the effort to make that monkey suit, proving that it was man made. Amazing that, eh?
Also, going forward in time, I can't ever recall seeing a monkey suit being used as a BF look this sophisticated. Nobody got to that level yet? Strange that, eh?

Its only strange to those with  credulous tunnel vision thinking or that make up stuff as they go.

Ive posted all this before but since this threads been purged here we go again.

The notion the PGF suit is sophisticated  is bunk it wasnt, it was very low even for the day, likely a johnny chabers cast off reworked by patterson, heronimous commented about the tacked on breasts.

Take a look at 2001 space odyssey the ape ( moonwatcher ) suits in it were mistaken for real apes and blow the PGF suit out of the water, so that debunks right there the ridiculous idea that good apes suits were not round at the time, but theres more.

https://hollywoodmoviecostumesandprops.blogspot.com/2013/02/moonwatcher-mask-and-costume-from-2001.html?m=1

In addition, all the bs about muscle movement, facial expression etc is based not on science but wishful thinking from true believers. Enhancing doesnt count if the detail wasnt there and you add it, or imagine its there, or bs for your agenda to profit.

And if one still thinks a suit couldnt be made in 68 i present the dancing pig,

This is from 1907 so if i apply the ravings of meldrum or confusions of eot about what suits could not be made i can only come to the conclusion a 6ft bi pedal mutant pig loved to ham it up and dance,

No, the PGF subject is a suit and a low end one.

One reason no one reproduced the film ape suit is money why spend time and money to try to show a true believer they fell for pattersons hoax, when true believers do not like facts or proof of their fails, another thing is to even try to reproduce it which can not be done not due to it being a real ceature but rather there is a total lack of necessary infomation,

How far away was patterson from subject, what was the angle what was pattersons speed and the subhects speed, how tall is the subject ( that can not be determined ) and patterson didnt even know correct camera speed which krantz himself said was so important it means if the speed wasnt right its just a man in a suit. We do not know lighting and cant repeat anything necessary to reproduce the film.

Countless ape suits look far better than the cheap PGF suit, including the moonwatchers from the same era,

Examples not limited to...Rick bakkers work in shrinking woman, and trading places,

The apes in congo, Harry  henderson, suits in on old shows like gilligans island, and the 3 stoogies

Now days a jerky commercial has a very good looking bigfoot suit we know its a suit because of context but out of context i saw a lot of true believers some still do fall for it that the jack links mascot was a real bigfoot.

 

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:


Somewhat of a mystery here is how no one back at that time duplicated the effort to make that monkey suit, proving that it was man made. Amazing that, eh?
Also, going forward in time, I can't ever recall seeing a monkey suit being used as a BF look this sophisticated. Nobody got to that level yet? Strange that, eh?

Here's a much more insightful "funny that." from earlier in the thread.

Quote

The . . .  footage was filmed in the same neck of the woods that would have been grizzly habitat if they hadn't been wiped out 50 years earlier.  Funny that; grizzlies all gone, not one footie harvested.

Where's the monkey?

Your interpretation of the word "sophisticated" is another "funny that."  

As far as monkey suits,  the replies to your post more than adequately deal with that, and I'll add that folks aren't bothering very much with replicating the Pattysuit because they realize that's what it is.  Again, where's the monkey that resembles that suit?  Nowhere, as far as evidence goes.  Fantasy, legend and myth, that's another story.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, psyche101 said:

You seem easily impressed by that suit. There's plenty older and new that actually are much better. The forum is filled with examples. It's a well debunked claim.

The diaper butt has been a pretty obvious flaw laughed at for a long time now 

It's amazing to you because you want it to be. 


Well, not exactly. What I want to be is the truth. And I am not 100% sold on the PG entity is a bigfoot, btw.
Now, put the same litmus test to the skeptics in here. They "want it to be" that the entity is a man in a monkey suit
so they search only for evidence that backs that presumption. This is a wont amongst the best of debaters, sadly. 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Carnoferox said:

Attempted recreations have all approached it from the wrong angle by using synthetic materials and Hollywood-style manufacturing. As far as I know, no one has ever tried bear hide and taxidermy-style stitching.

And isn't it strange, too, that no one that participated in the charade ever talked about the specifics of the constituency of the suit,
including the man that claims he made this amazing suit! I find that quite curious. ^_^

and good to see you, Carn

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:


Well, not exactly. What I want to be is the truth.

Me too!  Now where's that rascal footie?

13 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

And I am not 100% sold on the PG entity is a bigfoot, btw.

Good!  Then stop advancing it as evidence for footie.

13 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Now, put the same litmus test to the skeptics in here. They "want it to be" that the entity is a man in a monkey suit
so they search only for evidence that backs that presumption. This is a wont amongst the best of debaters, sadly. 

I'm sorry, but this is another strawman fallacy.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Resume said:

As far as monkey suits,  the replies to your post more than adequately deal with that

If that was true, I'd have no further questions. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

If that was true, I'd have no further questions. 

If only you recognised truth..

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

If that was true, I'd have no further questions. 

You certainly should have questions concerning a 50+ year old artifact-ridden, 60 second film of an alleged bipedal ape that has left no evidence in the fossil record or the natural and biological history of North America.  That's a good start.  Next question might be:"Where's the @#$%ing monkey already!?"

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

And isn't it strange, too, that no one that participated in the charade ever talked about the specifics of the constituency of the suit,
including the man that claims he made this amazing suit! I find that quite curious. ^_^

and good to see you, Carn

Well Patterson died in 1972 and he might have been the only one who knew how it was made.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

Well Patterson died in 1972 and he might have been the only one who knew how it was made.

Really?! 

What about the guy that allegedly made the suit, one Philp Morris.  Philp Morris Obit

Take a close look at the suit he is touting and tell me if that is even possible to be the alleged suit in the PG film. Anyway, where *is* that suit???

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

here's another one, O hostile one...where's the damm monkey suit.

Hostile?  It seems you're the one getting all worked up. As far as the monkey suit, it's long gone.

11 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

you think you have everything in a nice neat row, all wrapped up, and whether you admit it or not, you know you do not have proof

Nope. I don't have proof of anything; I examine the claims made for footie and the pgf, and I reject them due to lack of evidence.  And absence of evidence is evidence of absence where evidence is necessarily expected, which it certainly would be in the case of a breeding population of 6-9-ft bipedal apes of continental distribution.

Edited by Resume
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Really?! 

What about the guy that allegedly made the suit, one Philp Morris.  Philp Morris Obit

Take a close look at the suit he is touting and tell me if that is even possible to be the alleged suit in the PG film. Anyway, where *is* that suit???

Q.1.  Is the PG film the best evidence you have for the existence of BF?  (Just curious... if it isn't could you tell us what is?)

Q.2.  Rather than post teases, just be specific - you are clearly implying that there is 'stuff' in the obit image that make it impossible for that to have been used in the PG film.  So, specify precisely what characteristic/s you are referring to.

Given that the existence or otherwise of any similar or dissimilar suit really means NOTHING, it all seems a bit of a waste of your anger, EoT.  Why not calm down and actually be specific?

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Q.1.  Is the PG film the best evidence you have for the existence of BF?  (Just curious... if it isn't could you tell us what is?)

No, the PG film is not the best evidence of BF, IMO. I think a lot about the unidentified voice prints and the many many witnesses over the years as top evidences.

3 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Q.2.  Rather than post teases, just be specific - you are clearly implying that there is 'stuff' in the obit image that make it impossible for that to have been used in the PG film.  So, specify precisely what characteristic/s you are referring to.

Given that the existence or otherwise of any similar or dissimilar suit really means NOTHING, it all seems a bit of a waste of your anger, EoT.  Why not calm down and actually be specific?

Look at the images in the obit and just see for yourself if either can possibly be the PG suit. that's all. No science here, just opinion.
an if you still think that one of those suits is the same as the PG suit, please tell me where it is.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Really?! 

What about the guy that allegedly made the suit, one Philp Morris.  Philp uMorris Obit

Take a close look at the suit he is touting and tell me if that is even possible to be the alleged suit in the PG film. Anyway, where *is* that suit???

I think Morris was a liar and had nothing to do with the making of the PGF.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

I think Morris was a liar and had nothing to do with the making of the PGF.

I agree, he didnt go there until he was old and figured why not take the credit likely not realizing he lacked talent to make a copy,

Carmen_Nigro_Aka_Ken_Roady-604x900.thumb.jpg.227c347e2e889116822a925fcb39942d.jpg

Here is a period correct suit far, far better than the suit in the PGF

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heres a great suit...

bigfoot-base-video-2.jpg.360b247fdda636b90677a2b6b528be21.jpgBigfoot-home.jpg.07f7d31574c99ebce86e307c2073ee9a.jpg20190224_221141-415x285.png.bf69127fa439b62a295d5d3e4474997c.png12233539_847618465336266_905768904_n.jpg.06349d1678d45e0d4b60fd65361113b5.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, the13bats said:

Heres a great suit...

bigfoot-base-video-2.jpg.360b247fdda636b90677a2b6b528be21.jpgBigfoot-home.jpg.07f7d31574c99ebce86e307c2073ee9a.jpg20190224_221141-415x285.png.bf69127fa439b62a295d5d3e4474997c.png12233539_847618465336266_905768904_n.jpg.06349d1678d45e0d4b60fd65361113b5.jpg

My god!!  It's footie.  FINALLY!!

Filmed at the same location, with the same equipment as the pgf, it would look even better.

Edited by Resume
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/7/2022 at 7:34 AM, stereologist said:

But these things cannot be determined from the film:

  1. The film does not allow the height to be determined
  2. The film does not allow the weight to be determined

If we look at so-called corroborating evidence from the area we have casts which show that the flat foot prints were deep and yet none of the horses left deep prints.

Not true.

The film subject does leave itself to be determined in height to an acceptable amount of deviation, due to a thing called proportional analysis.  Since the film subject left physical tracks that were observed, measured, and some preserved in spite of the rain, a scientific comparison can be made.  In its simplest version, you may know it as this…

A=B as C=D

The height of the film subject can be relatively determined.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To put my point above in simpler terms…think of it like this.  You know that famous photo on the Beatles album cover, I think it’s Abbey Road?  IDK.  The one where they are walking across the intersection of a street? That one. I think at least one of the Beatles is barefoot in that photo.  If we knew the size of that Beatles feet, we could accurately describe his height based on the average comparison to data based on the proportions of a man’s legs or arm, or spine or torso, in comparison to the length of his feet.  It’s math, it’s science, it’s proven.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Resume said:

Are you quoting Bill Munn's self-published . . .  book?

No, I was speaking for myself.  But, if you would like confirmation of my points, I recommend Chris Murphy’s book entitled, “Meet the Sasquatch.” That will give you the science and the facts behind my points.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though, that is old stuff. The new stuff is this computer AI machine that analyzed the film and made new discoveries that skeptics are not talking about, like the movement of the toes, fingers, and the analysis of the “gluteal region” aka, the buttcrack.  Bill Muns knows something about that, doesn’t he?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Guyver said:

No, I was speaking for myself.  But, if you would like confirmation of my points, I recommend Chris Murphy’s book entitled, “Meet the Sasquatch.” That will give you the science and the facts behind my points.

What was your point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Guyver said:

Though, that is old stuff. The new stuff is this computer AI machine that analyzed the film and made new discoveries that skeptics are not talking about, like the movement of the toes, fingers, and the analysis of the “gluteal region” aka, the buttcrack.  Bill Muns knows something about that, doesn’t he?

I think Bill Munns knows how to gull credules.

Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.