It’s Gerald. Not just wild. Livid.
4 Likes
I think it’s an alien inside a bigfoot costume.
Mind. Blown.
8 Likes
Wasn’t this debunked? I thought I saw some things (in more than one place, TV, on the web, etc.) that said the guys who did that film admitted, FINALLY, that they had faked the film… Or am I just confusing this and another film? I was pretty sure it was this one because it’s been bandied around and around as conclusive proof of BF.
Bayesian statistics. A convincing gorilla walk would have increased the probability it was a cryptomammal, a man-like walk increases the probability it was a man. Neither eliminates the other possibility, just makes them less likely. If a tag was showing we could say “probably a gorilla suit, but maybe Big Foot happens to have fur that looks like a tag.” Very hard to eliminate possibilities outright, but we can certainly constrain them to “almost certainly not true”
You factor in all the other evidence, and convincing gait or not, we can almost, but not quite, say there’s definitely no Big Foot.
6 Likes
Name one thing, other than a human, that has a stride like a human.
Well, are you suggesting that Bigfoot changed her walk so that she could pass for human? Seriously?
It even walks like a male human!
1 Like
If memory serves they did, or at least tried. Either way I think the principles involved produced some plaster casts at some point. Whether from this sighting others . (don’t hold me to that though, working from memory)
More importantly most of the Patterson Gimlin material is actually missing. Including the original footage. Near as I’ve been able to find out (and honestly just judging from the footage) it was shot on 16mm reversal stock. So there never would have been a negative. But the original roll would contain information about the actual film stock, the rest of the footage (roll should have fit more footage than we have), and leaders indicating where it was developed and how. There are a couple of extent copies in the hands of family or bigfooters. But those haven’t generally been publicly accessible and no one really seems to know what generation those copies are. So most of the times you’ve seen the footage it’s actual been an old video transfer done for a tv documentary in (i think) the 70s. That was cropped, color and contrast corrected, and otherwise altered. Most of the “analyses” we’ve seen were done using that altered footage.
A few years back a modern transfer of one of the copies (or it might have been an older un-altered one) was released online. It’s surprisingly different. Looks like this redditor used that footage, that shot is a lot wider than im used to.
1 Like
The Wikipedia page on the Patterson-Gimlin film is an interesting summary of both pro and con for the possibility it was a hoax, as well as both pro and con scientific opinions about the film. It can be kind of befuddling to read it all. I keep an open mind about the possibility of Bigfoot’s existence, which is apparently enough to make me a crackpot to some folks.
Most of these comments demonstrate a complete lack of interest in considering a serious analysis of this film. I suggest you check out the extensive studies of Jeff Meldrum and Bill Munns. Philip Morris’s claims have never been backed up by an actual costume with materials available at the time the film was made. Munns analyzed the film frame by frame and concluded there was no evidence of a hoax. Meldrum studied plaster casts of footprints made by Patterson and concluded details were consistent with the observed gait. Of course it is much easier to make silly comments.
1 Like
“Human” covers a wide range: everything that had Homo as the first part of its Linnean binomial, for a start. Even Australopithecines walked like H. sapiens.
2 Likes
I’m stable and I see Bigfoot . . . stabilized.
So, you’re saying… instead of a human in an ape-suit, it could have been anything-that-had-Homo-as-the-first-part-of-its-Linnean-binomial in an ape-suit?
I suppose that doesn’t really narrow the field, now, does it.
No, that’s not what I’m suggesting at all. We’re discussing something that could be very close to humans on the evolutionary tree, so saying “it walks like a human, therefore it IS a human” is faulty reasoning-- I’m simply asking: how is Bigfoot supposed to walk?
To be clear: I’m not saying this is definitely a real Bigfoot. I am interested in the phenomenon in the same way some people are interested in the JFK assassination: I have read a lot about it from all angles, but I remain undecided, the arguments against are not more compelling than the arguments for (or vice versa.)
1 Like
Because he knew too much about where they were filming the fake moon landing
Walking like a human doesn’t necessarily prove a hoax. However I think it’s quite reasonable to say “the more it resembles a human in a gorilla suit, the less likely it is to be anything other than a human in a gorilla suit.”
4 Likes
There’s more than one person who claimed to be the guy wearing the suit. A a costume/special effects company that claims they made the suit. The guys who shot it were also known as prankers and or con men depending on who you ask.
It’s odd because none of the people who admitted involvement have anything solid to prove it. There are also some contradictions involved. Like how could multiple guys be in the suit? But a lot of the claims line up surprisingly well with Patterson and Gimlin’s doings at the time, and some other suspicious details. If you buy the reveal its starts to sound like there was more than one suit, and more than one attempt to create the footage.
I watch Ancient Aliens. I know that Goliath was a Bigfoot and Bigfoot is an alien.
4 Likes
Nearly as easy as making silly claims in the first place!
