Patterson-Gimlin Restoration

[fisheye]

Originally Posted by JG183

https://play.history.com/shows/the-p...n-2/episode-13

Their experts go about analyzing the new enhancement by picking and choosing what they feel supports their case. They ignore what hurts their case, which is the problem this video always had. They ignore Bob's white eyes looking out through a slot. They ignore how the slippers slipped on the feet as seen in the last enhancement. They ignore the white soles of the feet as seen on the last enhancement.

Instead, they pick frames that look like they might support butt crack definition and neck muscles. Or how the hand had pressed the hair forward and backward on the thigh.

More importantly, why did the History Channel simply let the whole new enhancement play so we could analyze the 'creature' frame by frame? I don't like being spoon-fed only what supports their arguments.

PS Thanks for the link!

[Mark S.]

Originally Posted by fisheye

Their experts go about analyzing the new enhancement by picking and choosing what they feel supports their case. They ignore what hurts their case, which is the problem this video always had. They ignore Bob's white eyes looking out through a slot. They ignore how the slippers slipped on the feet as seen in the last enhancement. They ignore the white soles of the feet as seen on the last enhancement.

Instead, they pick frames that look like they might support butt crack definition and neck muscles. Or how the hand had pressed the hair forward and backward on the thigh.

More importantly, why did the History Channel simply let the whole new enhancement play so we could analyze the 'creature' frame by frame? I don't like being spoon-fed only what supports their arguments.

PS Thanks for the link!

Yup.

In both the original and the enhanced version, the bottom of the boots are really obvious. They are so obviously boot soles that the only possible way not to see it is to willfully ignore it.

But for me, the biggest case against this film is how ignorant it is of basic primate anatomy. The beast is WAY too hairy. It's a costume. Primates do not have thick, thick, thick hair over their buttocks and breasts. They just don't. Humans don't. Gorillas don't. Chimps don't. Orangutans don't. The perpetrators of the hoax should have done some research first.

It's a guy in a costume.

[hotkarl]

Originally Posted by Mark S.

Yup.

In both the original and the enhanced version, the bottom of the boots are really obvious. They are so obviously boot soles that the only possible way not to see it is to willfully ignore it.

But for me, the biggest case against this film is how ignorant it is of basic primate anatomy. The beast is WAY too hairy. It's a costume. Primates do not have thick, thick, thick hair over their buttocks and breasts. They just don't. Humans don't. Gorillas don't. Chimps don't. Orangutans don't. The perpetrators of the hoax should have done some research first.

It's a guy in a costume.

Thing is, many people judge this thing against known animals. The possible dna tests have shown this thing to be something between human and primate. So having hairy boobs for example, may be normal in this animal IF it actually exists. IDK. I’m a skeptic, so I try to look at it from all sides.
Might be a guy a suit, might not.

[JONOV]

Originally Posted by marino760

The only problem I have with this is that if Patterson could not afford to rent a camera, how could he have afforded to have made a big foot suite with the amount of detail in the video. That suite was pretty much just as good or better than anything Hollywood had at that time.

I do agree that the chances of him going out there to film big foot and actually by chance coming across one is just about zero, even if they do exist. It's way too convenient.

He was a known con-man, or at the least, a grifter.

• That camera was rented way back in May of the year, he kept it long enough that the camera shop was able to get a warrant issued and he was arrested in October for theft, but had the charge dismissed.
• He was sued via a collection agency by 21 local creditors
• He never paid on a $700 loan for a bigfoot movie he was going to make, from Vilma Radford
• Gimlin sued Patterson's widow as well as promoter Al DeAtley for nonpayment of the 1/3 of the proceeds he was entitled to from the film; the film was successful, netting DeAtley $75K and presumably Patterson $75K

[fisheye]

Originally Posted by hotkarl

Thing is, many people judge this thing against known animals. The possible dna tests have shown this thing to be something between human and primate. So having hairy boobs for example, may be normal in this animal IF it actually exists. IDK. I’m a skeptic, so I try to look at it from all sides.
Might be a guy a suit, might not.

They did not even know about DNA testing in 1967. They did not start DNA testing until the 1980s. Furthermore, we have no live or deceased BF to compare for DNA. As far as DNA that shows primate and human DNA, it could be contaminated - we don't know. The big problem is that don't know doesn't add up to unknown species.

[Dd714]

Originally Posted by JONOV

He was a known con-man, or at the least, a grifter.

• That camera was rented way back in May of the year, he kept it long enough that the camera shop was able to get a warrant issued and he was arrested in October for theft, but had the charge dismissed.
• He was sued via a collection agency by 21 local creditors
• He never paid on a $700 loan for a bigfoot movie he was going to make, from Vilma Radford
• Gimlin sued Patterson's widow as well as promoter Al DeAtley for nonpayment of the 1/3 of the proceeds he was entitled to from the film; the film was successful, netting DeAtley $75K and presumably Patterson $75K

He was an interesting character to say the least. Yes he was a con-man to the end. What's most insulting is that he never paid the guy that wore the suit - Bob Heironimus!

[hotkarl]

Ok. I’ve decided it’s fake and there’s no such thing as a Bigfoot.
And that’s that. Next…?

[Tallysmom]

Originally Posted by hotkarl

ok. I’ve decided it’s fake and there’s no such thing as a bigfoot.
And that’s that. Next…?

chupacabra….

[Kings Gambit]

The one part that always bothered me about that video is that fact that the bottoms of his feet appear to be so light colored. Even homeless and shoeless people you see have dark colored bottoms of their feet and they walk around on mostly concrete all day instead of the forest. You'd think that the bottoms of his feet would be black/dark from never ever wearing shoes.

[sam812]

Originally Posted by Kings Gambit

The one part that always bothered me about that video is that fact that the bottoms of his feet appear to be so light colored. Even homeless and shoeless people you see have dark colored bottoms of their feet and they walk around on mostly concrete all day instead of the forest. You'd think that the bottoms of his feet would be black/dark from never ever wearing shoes.

Most believers now believe that BF are paranormal. That could explain their self cleaning big feet.