Let's Dissect This Analysis Of The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Insanity · January 09, 2013, 11:32:13 PM

I'm on the fence regarding bigfoot. I live in the PNW and the only person who claims to have seen/heard/smelt something is my grandpa. He and my grandma,mom and etc. Were hikeing and he was ahead of them all, and had decided to climb up a small mountain. From the story he got up there and he heard/saw something that scared him. I guess he came running down the trail at full speed saying there's something up there. I have no idea if he is telling the truth.

The only reason why I can't rule out the possibility, Even though the PNW isnt what it used to be, theres still alot of wild left-

I personaly wouldent mind seeing/hearing a Bigfoot. Would be something interesting to actualy know if it's real.

pate · November 10, 2015, 05:25:44 AM

Sassquatch...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90h2gLgTz5g

b_dubb · November 10, 2015, 07:09:32 AM

http://skeptoid.com/mobile/4375

A pretty serious bit of research here.

Art · November 11, 2015, 05:39:40 AM

Of course the costume looks good, they used real yeti pelts.

Robert · November 14, 2015, 07:17:34 PM

Quote from: James G. on January 29, 2011, 10:00:28 PMHorses aren't dumb as people think. If that's a person in a suit, I'd be very surprised a horse would react like that. Very Surprised. These men are cowboys and cavalrymen, and they learned to trust their mounts. Why, all of a sudden, are these horses panicking? Over a man in a suit?

Horses are smart, but not that smart! Someone wearing a suit can fool a dog or a child pretty easily; are you saying a horse is smarter than that?

Lots of animals are programmed instinctually to recognize certain forms or patterns, but those forms are even easier to "spoof" because the programming is pretty simple, as in the common example of the shadow of a figure moving one way to resemble a hawk & the other way to resemble a goose. hat would be the odds that the particular type of being shown in the film would be one a horse would be programmed to react to?

Robert · November 14, 2015, 07:26:48 PM

Quote from: anagrammy on February 11, 2011, 12:49:20 AMHorses have to be able to identify a predator; otherwise, they would never have survived. They are extremely uncomfortable around any animal that is unidentified.

But you can't use their failure to identify something as an example of identifying a predator!

pate · November 29, 2015, 03:34:56 AM

To use Horse Porn as a comparative prima ~~dona~~ facia source, I think is a bit (or bridle) over-the-top?

Holee Mare...
/

ediot: as can be seen in this pre-metamorphosis phase vivisection video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLv411v7ryQ quests and onions exist.

pate · November 29, 2015, 03:42:59 AM

See that thing on that one guy's back at about 0:44-0:49? Yeah not a pony (or young horse) tail...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-zGIS-WWZQ

It's the pre-reptilian phase that they celebrate in Bohemaian(sp) Groove.

You've been warned.

henge0stone · January 28, 2016, 06:49:57 PM

I am somewhat convinced that the film could be real. Maybe 60/40 for it being real. The biggest thing for me is the gate of the walk, the face and the breasts. The way the creature moves as it turns back look natural but that doesn't really prove anything.

One, the gate is very hard to reproduce. I saw a lot of documentaries about bigfoot. While they CAN duplicate the flat walk the bigfoot on the film uses it was very difficult. There was one documentary where they found some guy who claimed he was bigfoot and his walk was similar but I think the guy wasn't tall enough and didn't actually walk the same way.

two, the face. Most people don't mention the face but when they blow it up the face looks pretty unique. It doesn't look like a ape mask or anything it looks way more human than a hoaxer making a costume probably would make it. Also in some parts of the film (when blown up) you can see the jaw move sorta.

three, breasts why would hoaxers make breasts? Really no reason to do that.

I realize none of these are smoking guns given the age of the film and the not so great quality but all together they add to the credibility.

I also think if there were any real tell tale signs of a fraud they would have come out or at least more of them would. The debunking theories that people who worked on planet of the apes worked on it is pretty out there and like I said the face doesn't look like an ape. Most people who look at the film come away unable to deny or confirm it.

I think Patterson was honest for the most part. He brought people out to the site location to make footprint casts and look for other evidence. He let people inspect the film (and they are still inspecting it). He also never deviated from is story.

Real Hoaxers, like billy meier for example, never let people look at the negatives of the original film, are vague about where the pictures were taken and reclusive when it comes to investigators (unless they are there to prompt the story).

When it comes to whether or not Bigfoot could be real I think if its real its endangered and on its last legs. I agree that a dead bigfoot's body would quickly decompose just as dead bears do in the wilderness. Even if there were Bigfoot bones scattered about it would be almost impossible for most people to identify them from bear bones.

Its also possible that the Bigfoots are much smarter than we think and might bury their dead.