Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
rstevens62 - your post above is brilliant. I could not have said it better. To add to the story above where Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin film the most controversial and most famous BigFoot footage ever, there is another big discussion going on in which Patti, female Sasquatch cover girl being filmed here, is walking away from a large pool or pond of blood. Her baby Sasquatch has been shot and skinned by a group of I believe 6 hired "assassin's."
MK Davis has some YouTube videos about this story. Apparently Patti and company (there's more than her visible in the Patterson-Gimlin film that October day in 1967) are facing down death that day. Roger was thrown from his horse after his horse spikes from seeing Patti.
I can provide a link to MK Davis' video on here describing the whole event. He described a large pool of blood. Patti is only out in the open because she is in a horrid state of grief regarding her slaughtered baby.
There is film of men seen that day at Bluff Creek, CA, with rifles. One man has a handgun. They are hired to eliminate the Sasquatch family there that are terrorizing their work camp. This is all documented and can be Googled to your dismay or your delight.
Look closer and study Patti in the film of her walk. This is not Bob Hermonius in a suit. This is Patti and Patti is a Sasquatch. Study the walk and not only the extended arm length but the walking gait of Patti. It is certainly not human.
Last edited by elkotronics; 07-28-2020 at 03:26 AM..
I didnt see anyone going after their '15 minutes of fame', its been so long ago, I cannot recall the doctor or the university that did that walking gait study, (that concluded it could not possibly be a man)...
I do remember them testing MANY different size and shapes of people though, ages, from young to old, tall to short, fat, skinny, NONE could reproduce that same gait, they said it was physically impossible, due to how human hips are made and the way we walk normally, the method they used to test walking gaits was also state of the art, I believe its the same technology they use to digitally recreate pro sports players movements, for video game use and training purposes, they place little sensors on all the moving parts of the body and have them walk, they then compare it to 'Patties walking gait'.
When they showed Bob H. re creating the same walk as the video, if you notice, they shot the video from the side angle, (not the rear), big difference there!
I will dig up some of the evidence and post tomorrow that points to the video being real, and we can see if any of these people have had their 15 minutes in the spotlight yet as a result, Im referring to special effects people from Hollywood, doctors, scientists, and others.
This Wikipedia article goes into great detail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patter...%93Gimlin_film. It list reasons why the believers should believe and reasons why they should not. You should not read only the half you want to believe in; read the other half that questions everything.
Then, after reading that, you tell us why nobody else has been able to film one since 1967? Your side tells us that they cannot be photographed; but you clearly believe the hoax that Patterson pulled off in 67. That film was real to you even though nobody else can produce one clear picture of your mythical monster. You cannot have it both way, either you can film it or you can't.
First off, it would be extremely dangerous for anyone to go out dressed up in a Bigfoot looking suit and just walk around deep out in the wooded areas, (any hunters that may be in the area are going to be armed, and some would probably shoot first, ask questions later if they saw such a thing)...
Another thing, considering some of the areas these things have been seen, if it was a guy in a suit, and he goes out deep into the forest, in hopes of tricking someone...what are the odds ANYONE is going to come along and see them? I guess it would be different if they knew people were going to be in a certain area on a specific day, but that seems doubtful to me...
Finally, Im not sure how someone who does not believe Bigfoots exist...could ever misidentify a bear or any other known animal, for a Bigfoot? If they DO NOT BELIEVE BIGFOOT EXISTS...why would they jump to that conclusion upon seeing a bear on two legs or some other animal in a strange position? So in reality, for a person to misidentify a bear for a Bigfoot...they would have to believe bigfoot exists first!
No human can chuck huge ocks over long distances with precision.
How can a person understand what it is like to be at a parade when 76 trombones go by.
The effect on you is easily ten times that when old hairy comes around raising hell.
rstevens62 - your post above is brilliant. I could not have said it better. To add to the story above where Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin film the most controversial and most famous BigFoot footage ever, there is another big discussion going on in which Patti, female Sasquatch cover girl being filmed here, is walking away from a large pool or pond of blood. Her baby Sasquatch has been shot and skinned by a group of I believe 6 hired "assassin's."
MK Davis has some YouTube videos about this story. Apparently Patti and company (there's more than her visible in the Patterson-Gimlin film that October day in 1967) are facing down death that day. Roger was thrown from his horse after his horse spikes from seeing Patti.
I can provide a link to MK Davis' video on here describing the whole event. He described a large pool of blood. Patti is only out in the open because she is in a horrid state of grief regarding her slaughtered baby.
There is film of men seen that day at Bluff Creek, CA, with rifles. One man has a handgun. They are hired to eliminate the Sasquatch family there that are terrorizing their work camp. This is all documented and can be Googled to your dismay or your delight.
Look closer and study Patti in the film of her walk. This is not Bob Hermonius in a suit. This is Patti and Patti is a Sasquatch. Study the walk and not only the extended arm length but the walking gait of Patti. It is certainly not human.
I like trust but verify. I did. I ordered from the Vancouver Sun an article about two of the Bluff creek guys. On the following monday after the Oct 20th. They were showing Bluff Creek video. NO WAY! The processing time for video was not as it is know. They flew in from canada illegally. We do know they used a backhoe on site without permission and dug a big hole. Why?
rstevens62 - your post above is brilliant. I could not have said it better. To add to the story above where Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin film the most controversial and most famous BigFoot footage ever, there is another big discussion going on in which Patti, female Sasquatch cover girl being filmed here, is walking away from a large pool or pond of blood. Her baby Sasquatch has been shot and skinned by a group of I believe 6 hired "assassin's."
MK Davis has some YouTube videos about this story. Apparently Patti and company (there's more than her visible in the Patterson-Gimlin film that October day in 1967) are facing down death that day. Roger was thrown from his horse after his horse spikes from seeing Patti.
I can provide a link to MK Davis' video on here describing the whole event. He described a large pool of blood. Patti is only out in the open because she is in a horrid state of grief regarding her slaughtered baby.
There is film of men seen that day at Bluff Creek, CA, with rifles. One man has a handgun. They are hired to eliminate the Sasquatch family there that are terrorizing their work camp. This is all documented and can be Googled to your dismay or your delight.
Look closer and study Patti in the film of her walk. This is not Bob Hermonius in a suit. This is Patti and Patti is a Sasquatch. Study the walk and not only the extended arm length but the walking gait of Patti. It is certainly not human.
This website covers all the aspects and proves its real...
This Wikipedia article goes into great detail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patter...%93Gimlin_film. It list reasons why the believers should believe and reasons why they should not. You should not read only the half you want to believe in; read the other half that questions everything.
Then, after reading that, you tell us why nobody else has been able to film one since 1967? Your side tells us that they cannot be photographed; but you clearly believe the hoax that Patterson pulled off in 67. That film was real to you even though nobody else can produce one clear picture of your mythical monster. You cannot have it both way, either you can film it or you can't.
I do admit there is a conflict, that those that are trying to say Bigfoot can slip into other dimensions...if that was true, why was it so easy to get Patty on film, she didnt she slip into another dimension when she saw the guys filming her?
I have never really bought into that theory though, its too fantastical.
I do admit there is a conflict, that those that are trying to say Bigfoot can slip into other dimensions...if that was true, why was it so easy to get Patty on film, she didnt she slip into another dimension when she saw the guys filming her?
I have never really bought into that theory though, its too fantastical.
There is something human about them and some things that can only be
Supernatural definition, of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
Maybe its just because they are masters of their territory, they could know how to make themselves 'invisible' when they need to!
I also think there may be different types of them, some of the reports Ive read, the behavior and physical description screams 'primate'...but others, its not even close, its more 'human' in appearance and behavior.
Just like the example I posted in another thread, an older report from the 70s, a lady reported that a large naked black man was walking across her farm one night, according to her description, it apparently looked exactly like a giant black guy, (but he was 8-10ft tall). Id have to look back to be sure, but I believe they found a 9" pubic hair on a fence that it had crossed.
Maybe its just because they are masters of their territory, they could know how to make themselves 'invisible' when they need to!
I also think there may be different types of them, some of the reports Ive read, the behavior and physical description screams 'primate'...but others, its not even close, its more 'human' in appearance and behavior.
Just like the example I posted in another thread, an older report from the 70s, a lady reported that a large naked black man was walking across her farm one night, according to her description, it apparently looked exactly like a giant black guy, (but he was 8-10ft tall). Id have to look back to be sure, but I believe they found a 9" pubic hair on a fence that it had crossed.
Do you ever read what you post here? In the 1970s we did not have a lot of outside lighting, not like today. Even today most farms are not that well lit at night, other than what has to be lit. Poor lighting can effect your judgement.
As far as the "9" pubic hair on a fence that it had crossed" read the first article in this link: https://thoughtcatalog.com/lorenzo-j...ut-pubic-hair/. "A woman named Maoni Vi from Cape Town, South Africa had a pubic hair that measured 28 inches." Does that mean that she was three times taller than the Black man that crossed that farmer's field?
Personally I think the whole story was made up which would have fit the thinking of the times in 1970's. It could have been racially motivated.
Do you ever read what you post here? In the 1970s we did not have a lot of outside lighting, not like today. Even today most farms are not that well lit at night, other than what has to be lit. Poor lighting can effect your judgement.
As far as the "9" pubic hair on a fence that it had crossed" read the first article in this link: https://thoughtcatalog.com/lorenzo-j...ut-pubic-hair/. "A woman named Maoni Vi from Cape Town, South Africa had a pubic hair that measured 28 inches." Does that mean that she was three times taller than the Black man that crossed that farmer's field?
Personally I think the whole story was made up which would have fit the thinking of the times in 1970's. It could have been racially motivated.
You are right, it could have been racially motivated, its up to the individual whether you believe what they say or not. In that report, the lady said this being walked past a tree and she knew the lowest branch on that tree was roughly 10ft, she said this things head was close to the height of the branch, (that is how she estimated the size). the report didnt go into detail about the lighting, it could have been a full moon, or just a really clear night, IDK what she saw, the point I was trying to make, was that many Bigfoots apparently look more human than primate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
