JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Tags bigfoot , Bob Gimlin , Patterson-Gimlin film , Roger Patterson

Closed Thread
Old 28th February 2012, 02:48 PM   #7961
Leroy Blevins
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 368
I also like to add after I seen the Munns report I then knew where the other researcher got his image from that he send me. So when I show this image of the end of the PG film I do give Bill Munns all the credit for this image for this image of the end of the PG film.

Last edited by Leroy Blevins; 28th February 2012 at 02:52 PM.
Leroy Blevins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 02:57 PM   #7962
River
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,416
Originally Posted by Leroy Blevins View Post
I like to show this part of my research on the Bigfoot tracks.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?...pictureid=5627

Here is tracks I made with one of my shoes I made with the Bigfoot suit.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?...pictureid=5628

Here is a cast I made from one of my Bigfoot shoes I made for the suit. As you see in this cast there is a break in the middle of the foot. now they claim that no one can fake a track with a break in the middle of the foot. However I did.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?...pictureid=5626

Here is another image of the cast I made and you will see in this image Dermal ridges, again they claim no one can fake a track with Dermal Ridges. But, again I did it.

You see When it come to claims I do test on these claims just to make sure if it can or can not be done.
For years people been faking Bigfoot tracks however by these top bigfoot researchers making claims Like this track is real by the break in the middle of the foot or Dermal Ridges that is why this track is real. However I did a test on this claim and as you see this cast print was made by me and cast by me and this track and cast is 100% fake.

Leroy, you might enjoy this article Matt Crowley wrote on alleged dermal ridges in bigfoot prints.
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 02:58 PM   #7963
Kilaak Kommander
Critical Thinker
 
Kilaak Kommander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Happy Valley
Posts: 336
Originally Posted by Leroy Blevins View Post
Kilaak Kommander-

The Library of Congress does have a file on the film as you point out. And the file does talk what is on the film and there was only 1 reel of film. However for the film itself they do not have a copy of that film. They have it on file and copyright to Bob Gimlin and Miss Patterson but all they have are documents but no film.
Now what I don't understand about the document they have on file they place Bob Gimlin name on it first then Roger Patterson name as second.

Now you would think they would get a full copy of the reel to keep on file for copyrights but they don't they only have paperwork on the film.
Leroy,

They do have a physical copy of the film on file. I've held it in my hands, spooled it up, and viewed it. It's a nice print, but there's nothing on there that isn't readily available on the internet.

Thanks as always for sharing your suit and footprint tests. Nice work.

Last edited by Kilaak Kommander; 28th February 2012 at 03:00 PM.
Kilaak Kommander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 03:01 PM   #7964
HarryHenderson
Muse
 
HarryHenderson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: All up in your business
Posts: 910
So what's this I hear about someone filming a Bigfoot in northern California in October, 1967?
__________________
"The very existence of flame-throwers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, you know I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done." - George Carlin
HarryHenderson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 04:04 PM   #7965
AlaskaBushPilot
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,986
Yeah, the dermal ridges - Leroy has destroyed a couple of myths - one is the suit, and the other is the dermal ridges in the prints.


Do I have it right that on 11/7/68 Roger sells to ANE a copy of a Science Fiction Subject "American Bigfoot". That's how ANE categorized it.

Patty Patterson gave this 1968 production to Bill Munns. She did not give him "Bluff Creek 1967".

But Patty may still have a film that predates this copy. I think Al DeAtley is who we need to look at when asking where the original film - the whole roll - is. He paid for the developing. It went to him. He had copies made, but same thing - the original is returned to Al DeAtley.

Al DeAtley isn't going to say. He wouldn't say where he got it developed. He didn't even remember receiving the film from Roger in the mail, or by plane, or carrier pigeon. Heh. Al DeAtley still has them.

Last edited by AlaskaBushPilot; 28th February 2012 at 04:21 PM.
AlaskaBushPilot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 06:47 PM   #7966
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 14,785
Originally Posted by HarryHenderson View Post
So what's this I hear about someone filming a Bigfoot in northern California in October, 1967?
Who told you that?
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 07:28 PM   #7967
captain koolaid
Critical Thinker
 
captain koolaid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 384
Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot View Post
(edit)...I think Al DeAtley is who we need to look at when asking where the original film - the whole roll - is. He paid for the developing. It went to him. He had copies made, but same thing - the original is returned to Al DeAtley.

Al DeAtley isn't going to say. He wouldn't say where he got it developed. He didn't even remember receiving the film from Roger in the mail, or by plane, or carrier pigeon. Heh. Al DeAtley still has them.

We covered this a while ago, but I can't remember where. In one of the long PGF threads. If I recall correctly, DeAtley is supposed to have stated to someone that the original in-camera roll/s were "wrecked", "destroyed" somehow, or at least lost, very early in the affair. This is long before it supposedly "vanished" into some holding company's lockbox, or wherever it's supposed to be now. I strongly suspect that the locked away "original" is a copy. That Patty P.'s version is a copy. They're all copies. That the original in-camera version no longer exists. The greatest advantage in employing the film that Patterson used is not colour, or image related. It was the development and duping process. No negative. Why retain the edited and spliced original, when one could substitute it with a copy that can be called the "in-camera original", with no-one the wiser? If I was in on it with Patterson and DeAtley, I would have wanted that sucker burned, asap.
__________________
"Bigfoot does not leave hair samples for us unless he is in our dimension to begin with, obviously. Once the hair is separated from the electrical field associated with the Bigfoot's free quanta energy loops, the hair becomes independant and remains in it's most stable dimension, which presumably is our dimension."(Historian)

Last edited by captain koolaid; 28th February 2012 at 07:35 PM.
captain koolaid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th February 2012, 11:09 PM   #7968
Hitch
Muse
 
Hitch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 862
Originally Posted by captain koolaid View Post
We covered this a while ago, but I can't remember where. In one of the long PGF threads. If I recall correctly, DeAtley is supposed to have stated to someone that the original in-camera roll/s were "wrecked", "destroyed" somehow, or at least lost, very early in the affair. This is long before it supposedly "vanished" into some holding company's lockbox, or wherever it's supposed to be now. I strongly suspect that the locked away "original" is a copy. That Patty P.'s version is a copy. They're all copies. That the original in-camera version no longer exists. The greatest advantage in employing the film that Patterson used is not colour, or image related. It was the development and duping process. No negative. Why retain the edited and spliced original, when one could substitute it with a copy that can be called the "in-camera original", with no-one the wiser? If I was in on it with Patterson and DeAtley, I would have wanted that sucker burned, asap.
Well, then you have to deal with the sudden jumps that seem more consistent with edits than camera stops and starts, which according the the original accounts of Patterson and Gimlin never took place. It makes it hard to try to pass of a copy of an edit as the in-camera original. Not that it would stop some people from readily accepting it as such.
Hitch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th February 2012, 12:15 AM   #7969
captain koolaid
Critical Thinker
 
captain koolaid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 384
Originally Posted by Hitch View Post
Well, then you have to deal with the sudden jumps that seem more consistent with edits than camera stops and starts, which according the the original accounts of Patterson and Gimlin never took place. It makes it hard to try to pass of a copy of an edit as the in-camera original. Not that it would stop some people from readily accepting it as such.
Yeah, it's not a bulletproof plan for the scam. There are a few possible holes that could catch them out. However, I suspect that they weren't looking toward any serious scrutiny of the film, in that regard, at least not in the short term, beyond which they may not have expected the payoff to continue. What I mean is a con in the more superficial sense. If the original was cut up and spliced, to remove certain things, and or to rearrange the sequences, a chopped version is going to be an obvious red flag and will raise questions. They just needed to fool some willing Footers with a superficial examination, if at all, show it on the road and flog it to some chumps for TV and film rights, etc. A 1st gen copy would likely pass the test if you tell the suckers it's the "original".

If I recall correctly, one of the Footers (Green?) who attended the "first" screening, in Canada, "examined" the film, but only looked for splice edits and gross irregularities. He gave it the thumbs up and no more questions were asked. Another possibility is the potential for sales scamming. Patterson demonstrated his penchant for selling over 100% ownership shares. The same angle just might have been at play with the "original". With no negative, the Bluff Creek Boyz could have expected a pay off from multiple buyers of the "original" film. This is easier to acheive with copies of the tampered with original. Yes, they could expect to be caught out later with conflicting claims. But hey, that's later. Patterson did that sort of thing. Maybe they did do that. Again, if I recall correctly, there have been supposed claims from different parties as to who actually has and owns the "original" film. I may be working from a dodgy memory here, if any of the more in the know guys can chime in, it'd be great.
__________________
"Bigfoot does not leave hair samples for us unless he is in our dimension to begin with, obviously. Once the hair is separated from the electrical field associated with the Bigfoot's free quanta energy loops, the hair becomes independant and remains in it's most stable dimension, which presumably is our dimension."(Historian)
captain koolaid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th February 2012, 05:40 AM   #7970
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 14,785
IIRC, they scratched the heck out of the "original" film they were showing. That's what was ruined. Whether that was the camera original, or the first gen copy...?

When you see the stills or clips with the big scratches, you are closer to the original roll, I believe.

The story says they had a copy made immediately, and the original went into safe storage, but we all know what the stories are worth.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th February 2012, 08:54 AM   #7971
Leroy Blevins
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 368
OK let us look at this.

No researchers today or for the last 43 years has viewed or research the original film this is a fact.

The only film that was really shown on TV and research was a remake of the film done by Ron Olson and ANE in 1968.

Roger Patterson got 1 copy and John Green got 1 copy of the film.
Rene Dahinden got the rights and copies of each frame from the film.

Now what I don't understand is why did John Green get a full copy of the film and the rights to that copy and Rene Dahinden got the rights and copies of each frames from the film.

In other words
Roger Patterson and John Green has the rights to the film. But Rene Dahinden has the only rights to the frames from the film.

Now as it was told and shown The rights to the film called Bluff Creek Bigfoot those rights go to Bob Gimlin and Miss Patterson.
However Bob Gimlin don't even have any copies of any films.
Now if I had the rights to the film I would have a copy of that film to keep. But Bob Gimlin don't even have a copy of the film he has the rights too.
Or does he have a copy of the film and he is not telling no one about it.
Leroy Blevins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th February 2012, 09:11 AM   #7972
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,217
Never mind. This is a huge waste of time.
__________________
SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF
I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th February 2012, 04:09 PM   #7973
demonunderyourbed
Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 247
excellent stuff leroy keep digging...it will all fall into place..and we will see it for what it was all along..a man in a suit..
demonunderyourbed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th February 2012, 05:19 PM   #7974
captain koolaid
Critical Thinker
 
captain koolaid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 384
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
IIRC, they scratched the heck out of the "original" film they were showing. That's what was ruined. Whether that was the camera original, or the first gen copy...?

When you see the stills or clips with the big scratches, you are closer to the original roll, I believe.

The story says they had a copy made immediately, and the original went into safe storage, but we all know what the stories are worth.

You may be on the money with the "scratched" thing, that's probably what DeAtley meant. The "scratched original" story seems reasonable, but doesn't really add up, in view of what they claim the film represents. I think we have a concensus that the PGF was actually filmed and developed before the claimed Bigfoot Weekend. In which case, copies would have already been made. If one takes the Patterson claim at his word and they really filmed Bigfoot, then really got a wizard to develop it in time for the Bigfoot Premiere, then they might have screened the original. But, if you think about it, they didn't really value that "original" film that captures a for real, honest to god, genuine Bigfoot, for the first time in history. There's no damn way I would run that sucker through a projector, unless I really had to, and they didn't have to.

Even if one grants them the benefit of the doubt, being caught up in the excitement of those heady first days, that they may have run the original at the 1st screening, why on earth would you keep screening that original? Did they scratch the hell out of it at that first showing? I seem to recall the story going that the film got messed up, because they continued running that "original" film, at subsequent screening dates. Is that correct? If so, why the hell would they have not made screening copies and placed the original in safekeeping before the inevitable happened? That is, if it really is a Bigfoot. Even given the hoax, one would expect the scammers to take better care of that original. To at least pretend to care about it?
__________________
"Bigfoot does not leave hair samples for us unless he is in our dimension to begin with, obviously. Once the hair is separated from the electrical field associated with the Bigfoot's free quanta energy loops, the hair becomes independant and remains in it's most stable dimension, which presumably is our dimension."(Historian)

Last edited by captain koolaid; 29th February 2012 at 05:47 PM. Reason: clarification, grammar etc
captain koolaid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2012, 09:41 AM   #7975
parnassus
Master Poster
 
parnassus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: California
Posts: 2,566
one of the bleevers favs is a gif showing a bulge in PattyBob's calf as his foot hits the ground. They (actually poor Sweaty) combine this with a gif of a human contracting his calf muscle into a bunch, and think it proves something. Well, it sort of does prove something, but not what they think, because heel strike is not when the human calf muscle contracts maximally, aka bunches up (I don't use the term flex, because it means something entirely different in anatomical terms). This image shows what happens in real life, as opposed to what happens in the PGF:



The calf muscle, or gastrocnemius, is used to push the body weight up and forward as the body moves forward over the leg, culminating in push-off aka toe-off. Massive contraction at the time shown in the PGF clip (heel strike) would be very dysfunctional if it were real.

The bulging seen in the PGF image would seem to be due to a costume "malfunction," likely a combination of a sewn-in pad and buckling of the costume as the foot goes down, the ankle extends and the heel rises up into the pant leg.
__________________
"Many people consider the things government does for them to be social progress but they regard the things government does for others as socialism."---Earl Warren

Last edited by parnassus; 3rd March 2012 at 09:52 AM.
parnassus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2012, 11:27 AM   #7976
AlaskaBushPilot
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,986
Must be walking backwards then.
AlaskaBushPilot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2012, 12:10 PM   #7977
Buhmony
New Blood
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13
It looks to me like the calf muscle illusion in than frame is helped along by over saturation of the bright ground or objects on the ground. The calf bulge doesn't get bigger, really, but the lower leg suddenly narrows, probably from the bright white areas bleeding over the edges of the dark figure. A fortuitous shadow or highlight helps too. And of course you're right that it shouldn't even be contracting.
Buhmony is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2012, 12:17 PM   #7978
parnassus
Master Poster
 
parnassus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: California
Posts: 2,566
I agree that shifting light/shadows may be playing a role in the illusion.

Of course, it could also be a gunshot wound or a hernia. not.
__________________
"Many people consider the things government does for them to be social progress but they regard the things government does for others as socialism."---Earl Warren
parnassus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2012, 04:03 PM   #7979
AlaskaBushPilot
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,986
It's a sasquatch in a modified gorilla suit?
AlaskaBushPilot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2012, 06:34 PM   #7980
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past 'Resume Speed'
Posts: 13,561
Originally Posted by parnassus View Post
.............................

The calf muscle, or gastrocnemius, is used to push the body weight up and forward as the body moves forward over the leg, culminating in push-off aka toe-off. Massive contraction at the time shown in the PGF clip (heel strike) would be very dysfunctional if it were real.

The bulging seen in the PGF image would seem to be due to a costume "malfunction," likely a combination of a sewn-in pad and buckling of the costume as the foot goes down, the ankle extends and the heel rises up into the pant leg.
Beat that one to death at BFF years ago .. I can't link to it because it's in the archived stuff..

Still, there is a new audience, and it still plays well..

__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of Heaven, is the thought of spending
eternity with most of the people who claim they are going there. "

Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2012, 12:53 PM   #7981
Tontar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 109
Leroy, some of tghe stuff you talk about is very interestingm, but some of it is inaccurate as well. For example, you are mistaken about tghe process for making a stablized version of the film. The stabilizations are made by aligning all the frames relative to some axis or axes, but when you arrange them in the software, there is no transparency or bleed through from one frame to the next, unless you make the individual frames transparent. A decent stabilization is simply made by shifting each frame around to line up with something consistent from frame to frame, and once the frames are arranged properly, and played, each frame is displayed one after the next, the same as a reel of film would do it, each frame occupying the screen exclusively until the next frame replaces it. No bleed through, no transparency.

Also, the two frames of the log and brush, one from Green's film, one from Pattersons. You point out bark on the log, and missing back on the next. The same bark is there, to the left of your circle. If anything, the scenes look almost identical, without much of any time elapsing between them.

You need to be more accurate with some of your stuff if you don't want to alienate everyone on both sides of the fence.
Tontar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2012, 12:55 PM   #7982
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
 
kitakaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Behind the decks in Tokyo, Japan/Victoria, Canada
Posts: 9,530
Originally Posted by Leroy Blevins View Post
But Bob Gimlin don't even have a copy of the film he has the rights too.
Or does he have a copy of the film and he is not telling no one about it.
He does. Rene made him a copy when he took his original copy of both reels and Gimlin says he's kept it in a safe all these years.
__________________
Until better evidence is provided, the best solution to the PGF is that it is a man in a suit. -Astrophotographer.

2 prints, 1 trackway, same 'dermals'? 'Unfortunately no' says Meldrum.

I want to see bigfoot throw a pig... Is that wrong? -LTC8K6
kitakaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th March 2012, 01:12 PM   #7983
AlaskaBushPilot
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,986
Nobody would ever think of keeping the original PGF footage though.
AlaskaBushPilot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 06:02 AM   #7984
Leroy Blevins
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 368
At this time I like to point out somethings that other research made claims to however they never took the time to look into these claim they just post them and tel a big story with them.


In this image here you will see the man they claim was Bob Titmus. However this was the pilot that took John Green and Rene Dahinden down to Blue Creek mount. area and Bluff Creek the week before Labor day weekend.
They got there on Monday August 28, 1967.



The so called movie camera that John Green was claim to be holding in the tracking dog film was nothing more then a Polaroid J66 camera. It was not a movie camera as claim.


In this image here I like to point out another claim that was made.
They claim that BBC try to make a copy of the Bigfoot suit seen in the PG film and they paid over $500,000 to try and make this suit. However BBC has never claim they was out to make a copy of the suit they only claim they got a suit and film a man in the suit to see if any seams can be seen as they film the man in the suit. They never claim to have made or even try to make a copy of the PG Bigfoot suit.

Now let us look at this.

In this image here you see the cast print made by Roger Patterson from 1967. However this very same track is seen in another film from 1974 called Sasq- The Legend of Bigfoot.
This documentary was filmed in 1974 by ANE and was written by Ron Olson who worked for ANE. The film was not release until March 9, 1977.Now John Green helped Ron Olson and ANE on this documentary. John Green himself told me he worked on this documentary.

Again as you see frames from the tracking dog film of 1967 John Green and Rene Dahinden film from Blue Creek mount. And you again see more frames from the Sasq- The Legend of Bigfoot documentary from 1974.
Now what I find so funny about this is these films are 7 years apart from one another and The tracking dog film and Roger Patterson cast prints was filmed and made in 1967 however these same tracks seen from 1967 are seen again in 1974 in this documentary that was filmed in another location 100's of miles from Blue Creek mount and Bluff Creek area.
The only way to get these same tracks in two different locations 100's of miles apart and 7 years between are by using the same shoes you used in the first films.

As you have just seen I took that time to research these claims to find the truth about the claims that are made.
Leroy Blevins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 06:12 AM   #7985
Leroy Blevins
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 368
I do like to show you more of my research.


They claim the arms of the Bigfoot was down by it's knees however as you see here the arms are as the arms we have and hang down just below the buttocks.


As you see here as the right leg comes down the paints from the suit folds together like a suit should do when you take steps.


Here in this image you can see the top of the strap that hooks in the front.


Here you see the Bigfoot stopped and standing upright. And as you see even the Bigfoot walked upright with it's arms at buttocks level.


Here you can even see some of the fur hanging down at the bottom of the buttocks.
Leroy Blevins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 06:50 AM   #7986
Leroy Blevins
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 368
As you have just seen was a little more of my research on the PG film. And as you have seen by this research I looked at other films besides the PG film and there is reasons for this and here is some of them.

When I started to look over the PG film I need to know where the film got it's start and what the film gone through and who made the film and more.
By doing this it lead me to other films like the tracking dog film and Ron Olson film and more.
What people don't understand or even research is to find the truth you have to look over every claim and every story and piece it all together to find that truth.
These researchers only study just the one part of the PG film and not the rest of the film. These researchers don't even take the time to go out side of this film.
However I did, just like the people that surrounds this film.
Look at this.
Roger Patterson, John Green, Rene Dahinden, Bob Gimlin, Ron Olson and all the others people that surround this film is all friends with one another. Now these same people are the only ones at that time that found and filmed tracks and Bigfoot. And the location they did all of this filming was in the Blue Creek Mount and Bluff Creek area and all done in the same year 1967.
Then 2 of the men that had a lot to do with these films also did another film that shows these same tracks made by a so-called Bigfoot in 1974, 7 years after the original films was shot.

Plus as you see I point out things in this Bigfoot that shows it was a suit.
Now I know a lot of other researchers point out this or that on this Bigfoot to make it look real however not 1 of those researchers has never try to make a copy of the suit or even know how the suit works. As for me I took that time in trying to make a copy of the suit and by this I know what to look for in the suit to ID that part of the suit and I know how the Bigfoot suit works when you have it on.

For example:
These researchers
Not 1 of them never seen a real Bigfoot however they are Bigfoot experts and they claim the Bigfoot in the film is real.
Not 1 of them made or try to make a copy of the suit but, they are experts and they all know about costumes. Now I do give Bill Munns credit for that for he did made costumes for films. However he never try to make a copy of Bigfoot suit to back up his claims.

Now me:
I have seen a real Bigfoot in 2002 face to face so I do know what they really look like.
I have made a close copy of the suit and I know what to look for and how it works with the suit on.

These researchers
They claim to know how to find a Bigfoot and sell these books and sell their stories.
They also claim to know all about a Bigfoot what they eat and how they sleep and what locations to find them and more.

However these same researchers that make these claim not 1 of them have never filmed a Bigfoot or found a Bigfoot.
Now my question is,
What made them experts on Bigfoot?

At this time I like to spend more time on this subject however for those who really knows me that I have done a lot more research on other things from Noah's ark to the JFK Assassination and more and I only got a little time to spend on each of them everyday. So if anyone has any questions for me or like to see more feel free and contact me at leroyblevins1@aol.com this way we can go over everything 1 at a time.
Leroy Blevins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 08:26 AM   #7987
demonunderyourbed
Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 247
leroy what ever happened to that bloke you said had pics of the suit in pieces..did you ever get copies of them???
demonunderyourbed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 12:01 PM   #7988
River
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,416
Here are some graphics I made a while back (old graphics) that quickly point out some flaws in the suit and the way I think the suit may have been constructed.










Last edited by River; 6th March 2012 at 12:03 PM.
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 02:08 PM   #7989
AlaskaBushPilot
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,986
Originally Posted by Leroy Blevins View Post
I have made a close copy of the suit and I know what to look for and how it works with the suit on.
Absolutely. Yay Leroy!

Of all people, Bill Munns has the most to answer to with Leroy Blevins.

If Bill Munns is really a hollywood make-up or suit expert, then he ought to be able to make a suit that blows Leroy Blevins' suit out of the water. Same materials available in 1967. Same budget he spent on this huge diversionary film analysis project.

It is a matter of using one's credentials backwards. Dr. Merldumb is doing the same thing. You "lend" your credibility to the hoax, pretending you can't accomplish such a thing. This simple guy with no experience does it the first time he tries it! That's just too funny.

With Merldumb you have him pretending he can't whip up a pair of stompers to make every casting in his collection. That's called "playing dumb".

In one of those pictures you can see someone painstakingly walked in the settled dust/dirt on the side of that road in the maximally print-friendly area - and a place that won't be covered up by truck tracks. What a lucky coincidence!

Is that Dahinden showing he can make the same stride in stompers? Looks like he has a stick or a measuring tape laid down over two prints.

Last edited by AlaskaBushPilot; 6th March 2012 at 02:11 PM.
AlaskaBushPilot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 02:44 PM   #7990
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past 'Resume Speed'
Posts: 13,561
Quote:
In one of those pictures you can see someone painstakingly walked in the settled dust/dirt on the side of that road in the maximally print-friendly area - and a place that won't be covered up by truck tracks. What a lucky coincidence!
I'm pretty sure that trackway is where the Wallace foot with the crack in the heel shows up..

Proponents ( including Green and Meldrum, I believe ) claim that the Wallace stomper was carved to match the track ..

Give me a break ...
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of Heaven, is the thought of spending
eternity with most of the people who claim they are going there. "

Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 04:42 PM   #7991
Leroy Blevins
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 368








Ray Wallace made the shoes for Roger Patterson they took these shoes and added them to the suit. The nail holes on the side shows where they nailed the fur to them.



These same shoes that was on the Bigfoot in the PG film also match the tracks from the tracking dog film. And they both was filmed in the same area and in the same year.


To answer the question about the photos of the suit. No he did not let me make copies of the photos.
Leroy Blevins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 05:10 PM   #7992
AlaskaBushPilot
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,986
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
I'm pretty sure that trackway is where the Wallace foot with the crack in the heel shows up..

Proponents ( including Green and Meldrum, I believe ) claim that the Wallace stomper was carved to match the track ..
OMG that's why I come here! Way too funny!

Gotta luv 'em.

Leroy - that's interesting with the feet, although unnecessary for me personally. It isn't important to me if Bob Heironimus wore stompers. Interesting, maybe but I think best confirmed just by asking him if he remembers one way or the other.

Patterson had stompers for many years, so it is not decisive to the PGF Film whether the actor wore them or not. He indicated Patterson and Tonto AKA Bob Gimlin were going to make more after Bob left to mail the film. So you have every element necessary to commit the crime.


For some time I was proposing that Patterson and Gimlin made these prints that Dahinden is looking at, after the filming, but I was treated with such scorn I had to start seeing a therapist. The argument against me was the foliage being too brilliant.

But they are called Wallace Stompers in that picture for a reason - that little extra rounding by the ball of the big toe.

Anyone can reverse-engineer the stompers that Wallace made. Patterson seems to have.
AlaskaBushPilot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 06:46 PM   #7993
parnassus
Master Poster
 
parnassus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: California
Posts: 2,566
River,
It looks perhaps like the upper part of the costume has a diaper component.
my kayaking wet suit top:

It goes over a pair of rubber or nylon pants.
There is a strap that hangs down the back of the top, with grommets, and you pull it forward between your legs and fasten it in front with two twist things.
p.
__________________
"Many people consider the things government does for them to be social progress but they regard the things government does for others as socialism."---Earl Warren

Last edited by parnassus; 6th March 2012 at 07:10 PM.
parnassus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 06:53 PM   #7994
River
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,416
It's my opinion that the suit resembles a turtle in a somewhat similar fashion to ninja turtles. The legs/hipwaders tuck up under the upper turtle shell.
River is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th March 2012, 07:27 PM   #7995
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 32,658
Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg View Post
I'm pretty sure that trackway is where the Wallace foot with the crack in the heel shows up..

Proponents ( including Green and Meldrum, I believe ) claim that the Wallace stomper was carved to match the track ..

Give me a break ...
Wallace carved his stomper to resemble a real bigfoot footprint and that's how we know bigfoot is real?
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2012, 06:28 AM   #7996
Leroy Blevins
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 368
OK the truth behind the PG Bigfoot suit.
The suit was made by a taxidermy and that was Bob Titmus.

The suit as seen in the film fits the bear hid.

As you see in this photo above as you change the color just a little looks like Blood spots or the so called bullet holes.


The fur on the bigfoot suit match the fur from a bear.





The left hand on the Bigfoot is a bear paw


The details in the suit match the same style they do when a taxidermy makes a stuff bear.

Sorry to say Mr.Morris did not make the suit the suit was made by Bob Titmus and they used a bear hid to make the suit. This is why Bob Heironmius claim the suit smell like a dead animal and that is was like horse hid.

You see when a taxidermist makes a stuff bear he starts with the legs and work upward and you see the seam from the back legs on the bear in the photo and in the same location on the Bigfoot again you see this same seam. Bob Titmus was a taxidermist for years before he got into the Bigfoot research. His shop was only 143 miles from Willow Creek at the time these hoaxs took place. He used Ray Wallace shoes for the feet of the bigfoot. This is why the Bigfoot looked more real for the suit was made by a person that was a taxidermist and they make the stuff animals look real and alive when they stuff them. A taxidermist only use the hid only and make the bodies out of stuffing and take the hid and cover over that stuffing.
Leroy Blevins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2012, 07:12 AM   #7997
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,217
Leroy,
It's "hide", not "hid".

Thanks
__________________
SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF
I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2012, 08:51 AM   #7998
Leroy Blevins
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 368
GT/CS- Thank you. And sorry for the miss spelled word.
Leroy Blevins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2012, 12:05 PM   #7999
TheJackal
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Downtown Hollow Earth
Posts: 153
This is what I absolutely love about this forum. A real debate on the PGF, with detailed, critical discussion of the film. VoodooSIXX and Leroy, I appreciate your work. While I don't necessarily agree with every detail of each assessment, I can come to the general conclusion that it is someone in an ill fitting suit. Even the Munn's report, which attempts to "prove" it's not a guy in a suit, makes a pretty strong case for it being a guy in a suit. It's an average height individual with a stocky build in a poorly fitting suit, that causes arm pit creases and fat rolls, oh and ripples in the thigh muscle perpendicular to the axis of the muscle and calf muscles that contract at the wrong time. Thank you for the photos, and other descriptions. I would love to know where you all are getting those great images. Everything I find is just about useless to do a detailed study.

Last edited by TheJackal; 15th March 2012 at 12:06 PM.
TheJackal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th March 2012, 12:48 PM   #8000
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 14,785
I don't think Leroy is correct, but it is funny how a bear paw seems to fit the way Patty's hands appear some of the time in the film. The way the arms just seem to "end" at times, etc.

I have always been puzzled by the "catcher's mitt" appearance in some shots as well.

Left hand baseball "catcher's mitt" shots:





__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

Last edited by LTC8K6; 15th March 2012 at 12:50 PM.
LTC8K6 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

JREF Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:00 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.