Finally clear evidence that the PG film is a hoax!

a reply to: Masterjaden

You don't speak for me, and possibly for others as well. Believe what YOU want, from atop that Olympian perch all you want.

Meanwhile, the framework surrounding the Patterson video is highly suspicious, not to mention perfectly convenient. Not only did a known showman/Sasquatch hunter go looking for a Sasquatch with a camera, he found one that was willing to walk a veritable catwalk for him, so as to give the camera a good, long look. Such would seem to be at odds with countless sightings and official reports, over decades, spanning North America. But Patterson found one....and it was happy to break code and lumber its way across a wide-open-space, eschewing the safety of the nearby foliage.

The framework surrounding the compelling footage......has to be questioned given the weight of the ever increasing sightings and reports, and the typical head-for-the-safety-of-the-nearest-bush behavior (not to mention....swiftness), related.

a reply to: Maverick7

When I first did see that bigfoot film it took me about some 7 seconds to conclude it was a hoax. When you look the feet of bigfoot you can see its feet are not that big...

But seriously... what do we know about the behaviour of bigfoot. It is presumptuous to say that it can not be bigfoot because bigfoot would not behave in a certain way in a specific situation.

The only thing we know about bigfoot is, it is an upright walking big hairy animal....with big feet....and without shoes.

a reply to: BiffTannen

I was NOT defending the paterson gimlin footage, what in the hell does this post have to do with MINE???

I was defending logical debate only. If you want to refute a claim, do it logically, or I will show the invalidity or fallacy of what you are pointing out.

I would've done the same thing to someone arguing against something on the other side of the coin. If something lacks validity or credibility, I will point it out.

Jaden

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

"My avatar is fine, obviously someone in a gorilla costume." - Ummm no, that is a gorilla that has been photo shopped. Did you really think that was a gorilla costume?

"Why no one has ever found a shred of evidence previously, or since, to indicate bigfoot exists here, or anywhere else? Did bigfoot only exist for one day?" - Wrong, and wrong again. But you will need to review and understand evidence before we can discuss.

Anyway, we were discussing your use of "strawman" arguments - before you went off point.

originally posted by: tiger_tts
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

"My avatar is fine, obviously someone in a gorilla costume." - Ummm no, that is a gorilla that has been photo shopped. Did you really think that was a gorilla costume?

Ffs. Hopefully your not trying to find bigfoot from following his sarcasm.

"Why no one has ever found a shred of evidence previously, or since, to indicate bigfoot exists here, or anywhere else? Did bigfoot only exist for one day?" - Wrong, and wrong again. But you will need to review and understand evidence before we can discuss.

Anyway, we were discussing your use of "strawman" arguments - before you went off point.

Anything can be called evidence. Genuine evidence that would lead scientists to think there might be an apeman running across NA? Nothing, nil. If you have some, let's see it.

No type of evidence has ever been provided for bigfoot that can't also be provided to support the existence of fairies.

Look into what was provided to scientists to make them think the Bili Ape could have been real.

How's them crops going, keeping 'em safe?

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

I"m sorry your attempt at obfuscation in NO WAY negates what I've said. YOU are the one who brought up a photo of a person in a gorilla suit and claimed it negated the op's (of the post in question) claim.

I merely pointed out that every point in your rebuttal post failed to address the point of the ops post.

You are failing miserably in the logic department here.

It would be like if I said here's a picture of venus it is approximately the same size as earth... Then you showed a picture of Jupiter and said, Jupiter is BIGGER than earth...

It simply doesn't pass logical muster...

Jaden

p.s. am I saying that the op in question properly backed up his claim? No, in fact all he did was make a post with a pic and described his interpretation of said pic. He could've diagrammed human anatomy and slope of forehead along with distance of browline above eyes and did a comparative analysis and would've had a much stronger claim.

That he didn't in NO WAY makes your attempted rebuttal of his opinionated claim any more valid...

There is no need to keep apologising over your unrealistic bigfoot stance, it isn't such a big deal.

The claim doesn't need rebutting. Neither was it necessarily concerning the "OP's post" but something else. All I did was give a counter opinion, with a pic to back it. Then you seem to have lost your way lol.

You got it bad fella, and no, it doesn't really work that way. You seem to take the stance, once again, that the relevant poster's opinion (which was fine and relevant for an opinion) needs a scientific debunking or something because...well, just because. Also that your further claim that the pic provided is not relevant is somehow a fact because...well, just because. No explanation. You don't have to believe anything your imagination doesn't allow, but banging on about it like this with no explanation is silly.

There is nothing that has ever been demonstrated that would put anything about "Patty" beyond the range of a modern human in a costume. I have already pointed out where a highly respected Primatologist (and paleoanthropologist...and medical doctor) has claimed that the top half (which includes the head by the way) of "Patty" is fake. This is actually what he based his conclusion of fakety-fake on. Read his work further and he talks about the head/crest specifically. Somehow he seems to have missed the part where no human could fit into it. Like everyone else (except for a few bigfooters). Afaik Meldrum doesn't even claim this and he tells all sorts of fibs about "Patty".

So therefore, it doesn't seem unreasonable at all to request such a claim be demonstrated to some reasonable degree. Which it isn't. You know, some way of obtaining faithful measurements, and an anthropological source clearly showing how and why these measurements preclude the known range of modern humans. That sort of thing. If you want it rebutted.

It never will be because as soon as people blow it up more than it already usually is, it becomes a useless amorphous clump that changes dramatically with every frame. The same unrealistic type of claims also show the crest itself to be obviously prosthetic, because it wobbles around as "Patty" walks. It has just as much going for it.

Such details exist in people's imaginations, certainly not on the film (again, unless you can demonstrate otherwise).

The main difference between these two monsters, is that one of them has very good quality extreme close up photos available and that's why it is used. The quality is the main difference, one is a shaky blurry distant blob, usually blown up beyond what the lack of quality allows for, the other isn't and looks reasonably realistic for an apeman because of this.

As to the specific foolishness that seems to be causing you confusion and consternation, if "Patty's" head can't be human, neither can this (it is the same creature and look at that sloping brow!). If your feverish imagination sees something else and doesn't allow you to accept this, then don't.

So yes, it does discount the relevant claim about Patty. Not only that, it looks like a much better version of what Patterson rather crudely attempted to make. Which is probably why the overwhelming number of better credentialled FX people say fakety-fake. Unless you can genuinely show otherwise?



Ih fact, there are many more that also can't be human for the same reason (from the '30's on)

These couple from the same person (Gemora).



There's no shortage of fake creatures that no human head could fit into, the same way they can't fit into "Patty's". If "Patty" can't be real for the reason you seem to have taken a liking to, neither are any of these.

Another thing that seems unusual about "Patty" is the breasts. This is about as far as the resolution can be enlarged without being useless even for the most basic features, so Im not claiming any sort of fine details. Only that they seem to be attached to the region between the lower chest and upper abdomen. Not sagging that low, but they seem to be attached in the wrong place.

Was he under the weather that day? Did he play "stick the hooters on "Patty" while blindfolded or something? Or are they correct, anatomically? Or a film anomoly, are there other frames that show them in a more (seemingly) realistic position?

It's no great secret that Patterson drew breasts on the bigfoot he offered in his book a year or so before he faked "Patty". It's strange also to hear bigfooters claim no one knew about the breasts until recently. Patterson pointed them out at his first screening and in his first interviews.

I would put pics for comparison purposes, but I can't find any comparable and not sure if the moderators want pics of hooters suddenly gracing the thread. Anyone find any bipedal ape (ie. human) similar, or know whether this would be in the normal range re where they attach?

Seems fake (that's a considered opinion, for certain members who don't take suggestion of fake very well lol).

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

There's no shortage of fake creatures that no human head could fit into, the same way they can't fit into "Patty's". If "Patty" can't be real for the reason you seem to have taken a liking to, neither are any of these.

The underlined from a couple of posts above is a typo and should read "fake". Obviously.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

I"m sorry your attempt at obfuscation in NO WAY negates what I've said. YOU are the one who brought up a photo of a person in a gorilla suit and claimed it negated the op's (of the post in question) claim.

I merely pointed out that every point in your rebuttal post failed to address the point of the ops post.

You are failing miserably in the logic department here.

It would be like if I said here's a picture of venus it is approximately the same size as earth... Then you showed a picture of Jupiter and said, Jupiter is BIGGER than earth...

It simply doesn't pass logical muster...

Jaden

p.s. am I saying that the op in question properly backed up his claim? No, in fact all he did was make a post with a pic and described his interpretation of said pic. He could've diagrammed human anatomy and slope of forehead along with distance of browline above eyes and did a comparative analysis and would've had a much stronger claim.

That he didn't in NO WAY makes your attempted rebuttal of his opinionated claim any more valid...

There is no need to keep apologising over your unrealistic bigfoot stance, it isn't such a big deal.

The claim doesn't need rebutting. Neither was it necessarily concerning the "OP's post" but something else. All I did was give a counter opinion, with a pic to back it. Then you seem to have lost your way lol.

You got it bad fella, and no, it doesn't really work that way. You seem to take the stance, once again, that the relevant poster's opinion (which was fine and relevant for an opinion) needs a scientific debunking or something because...well, just because. Also that your further claim that the pic provided is not relevant is somehow a fact because...well, just because. No explanation. You don't have to believe anything your imagination doesn't allow, but banging on about it like this with no explanation is silly.

There is nothing that has ever been demonstrated that would put anything about "Patty" beyond the range of a modern human in a costume. I have already pointed out where a highly respected Primatologist (and paleoanthropologist...and medical doctor) has claimed that the top half (which includes the head by the way) of "Patty" is fake. This is actually what he based his conclusion of fakety-fake on. Read his work further and he talks about the head/crest specifically. Somehow he seems to have missed the part where no human could fit into it. Like everyone else (except for a few bigfooters). Afaik Meldrum doesn't even claim this and he tells all sorts of fibs about "Patty".

So therefore, it doesn't seem unreasonable at all to request such a claim be demonstrated to some reasonable degree. Which it isn't. You know, some way of obtaining faithful measurements, and an anthropological source clearly showing how and why these measurements preclude the known range of modern humans. That sort of thing. If you want it rebutted.

It never will be because as soon as people blow it up more than it already usually is, it becomes a useless amorphous clump that changes dramatically with every frame. The same unrealistic type of claims also show the crest itself to be obviously prosthetic, because it wobbles around as "Patty" walks. It has just as much going for it.

Such details exist in people's imaginations, certainly not on the film (again, unless you can demonstrate otherwise).

The main difference between these two monsters, is that one of them has very good quality extreme close up photos available and that's why it is used. The quality is the main difference, one is a shaky blurry distant blob, usually blown up beyond what the lack of quality allows for, the other isn't and looks reasonably realistic for an apeman because of this.

As to the specific foolishness that seems to be causing you confusion and consternation, if "Patty's" head can't be human, neither can this (it is the same creature and look at that sloping brow!). If your feverish imagination sees something else and doesn't allow you to accept this, then don't.

So yes, it does discount the relevant claim about Patty. Not only that, it looks like a much better version of what Patterson rather crudely attempted to make. Which is probably why the overwhelming number of better credentialled FX people say fakety-fake. Unless you can genuinely show otherwise?

Ih fact, there are many more that also can't be human for the same reason (from the '30's on)

These couple from the same person (Gemora).

There's no shortage of fake creatures that no human head could fit into, the same way they can't fit into "Patty's". If "Patty" can't be real for the reason you seem to have taken a liking to, neither are any of these.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Please ignore my previous post. That was an error. I joined just a moment ago to respond to Cogito, Ergo Sum, and still have yet to learn the gist of this forum.

I completely agree with you about the Patterson film. On another forum, I pounded the subject until there was nothing left but bare bone. All to no avail. The first commandment of Bigfooters is: Thou shalt not let anyone debunk the Patterson footage. It is the Holy Grail of Bigfoot belief.

However, I take issue with attaching Jeff Meldrum's name to "fibs" of any sort. Granted, his need to believe is overwhelming, and clearly affects his scientific approach, but his honor and integrity cannot be questioned.

Living relatively close to him, I made an appointment to visit him in his lab at the college in Pocatello. We spent about three hours discussing why he believes in Bigfoot. His belief, as well as his approach, erroneous as it may be, is very sincere. I had a very enjoyable visit with him, and detected absolutely nothing deceptive in his nature.

Bottom line, Jeff Meldrum does not "fib." He simply "manipulates" the "evidence" to accommodate what he wants to believe.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

LOL your idiocy speaks for itself... You couldn't argue your way out of a wet paper bag... If it didn't need rebutting why the obvious attempt at rebuttal?... What stance on bigfoot are you referring to? strawman much? I haven't made a single claim of any bigfoot stance I have.

I merely pointed out your failure to use any rational or logical position in your attempted rebuttal of someone else's stance.

I haven't even commented on my stance on the status of the PG film...lol... Again, I've only commented on your obvious shortcomings in logical argument...

So go ahead come back with another straw man argument or ad hominem, it seems that's all you're capable of... OH BTW, you haven't done anything different with ALL those other photos you posted. You haven't pointed out ANY actually logical argument as to why they are correlative with the original screenshot posted. Have you measured the relative distances and angles of the forehead in relation to the eyes and apparent browline to help bolster your point? No, oh ok, I see, after all it's just your opinion right?

Yet, your argument is that your opinion is more valid than the one your WEREN'T attempting to rebutt, because it didn't NEED rebbuttal...LOL...

Jaden

originally posted by: SensusCommunis
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Please ignore my previous post. That was an error. I joined just a moment ago to respond to Cogito, Ergo Sum, and still have yet to learn the gist of this forum.

I completely agree with you about the Patterson film. On another forum, I pounded the subject until there was nothing left but bare bone. All to no avail. The first commandment of Bigfooters is: Thou shalt not let anyone debunk the Patterson footage. It is the Holy Grail of Bigfoot belief.

However, I take issue with attaching Jeff Meldrum's name to "fibs" of any sort. Granted, his need to believe is overwhelming, and clearly affects his scientific approach, but his honor and integrity cannot be questioned.

Living relatively close to him, I made an appointment to visit him in his lab at the college in Pocatello. We spent about three hours discussing why he believes in Bigfoot. His belief, as well as his approach, erroneous as it may be, is very sincere. I had a very enjoyable visit with him, and detected absolutely nothing deceptive in his nature.

Bottom line, Jeff Meldrum does not "fib." He simply "manipulates" the "evidence" to accommodate what he wants to believe.

He might well believe in bigfoot, he might also believe in his speculative pseudo science. He seems to believe in Joseph Smith, so who knows, he might even believe in the Skookum bigfoot elk lay (that's difficult to believe though).

Look from around 19 minutes. The claim that "Patty" is 7'3" tall was publicly retracted by his source, Munns himself about 4 years previously. Not only that, but as someone collaborating with Munns and sourcing funding to continue his pseudo science, he obviously would have known that. Or would you suggest simply a high level of incompetence? This is the problem with pseudo sciences that avoid critical scrutiny. Claims simply live on perpetually, unlike in real science.



Generally when a scientist is paid to lecture, and can be quite demonstrably shown to be in error, it would be customary to acknowledge this graciously. If not at the time, later. What followed this, instead, was an utter lack of such acknowledgement and a resort to the ad hominem instead to the person pointing it out.

To claim the amount of facts he does about "Patty" without making it quite clear distinction as to what is and isn't personal belief is lacking in intellectual integrity.

Though I don't really consider any of them bigfoot "scientists" to begin with, including Meldrum. The entirety of them have submitted 0 research papers to any genuine peer reviewed academic publications. In fact Meldrum seems to actively avoid the few scientists who have been prepared to critique his claims. They seem to be bigfoot "celebrities" who sell opinions that coincide with what credulous bigfooters like to hear. The science regarding bigfoot is yet to begin.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

LOL your idiocy speaks for itself... You couldn't argue your way out of a wet paper bag... If it didn't need rebutting why the obvious attempt at rebuttal?... What stance on bigfoot are you referring to? strawman much? I haven't made a single claim of any bigfoot stance I have.

I merely pointed out your failure to use any rational or logical position in your attempted rebuttal of someone else's stance.

I haven't even commented on my stance on the status of the PG film...lol... Again, I've only commented on your obvious shortcomings in logical argument...

So go ahead come back with another straw man argument or ad hominem, it seems that's all you're capable of... OH BTW, you haven't done anything different with ALL those other photos you posted. You haven't pointed out ANY actually logical argument as to why they are correlative with the original screenshot posted. Have you measured the relative distances and angles of the forehead in relation to the eyes and apparent browline to help bolster your point? No, oh ok, I see, after all it's just your opinion right?

Yet, your argument is that your opinion is more valid than the one your WEREN'T attempting to rebutt, because it didn't NEED rebbuttal...LOL...

Jaden

Nice. Once again outlogiced by the blurry bigfoot brains trust. Same thing happens with the creationists lol. I seem to have missed the logical argument put forth for the original claim...? Where might I find it?

What you are clinging to simply amounts to a plea to ignorance. When an extremely unlikely, unverified and probably unfalsifiable (because the data is too lacking) half arsed belief based claim is put forward without any way to falsify it. Like saying god exists and and thinking it is true unless acceptably (to yourself) debunked. Which probably also makes it a delusion. Like you are now doing with bigfoot.

There is another form of logic that the real world uses, that seems to have been missed by fringe dwellers such as yourself. That is, if you make an unlikely claim (that bigfoot is real because of features on "Patty") then this claim should be sufficiently backed with something that can be studied. This still hasn't been provided.

All of the images I have provided certainly do refute the original claim and don't need specifics at this stage, as until some are provided for comparison or refutation (it's unlikely any such things are possible) this would seem irrelevant.

The shape of those masks appear to have less room in them for a human head shape than "Patty" does. As this is about the full extent to which this can be studied or compared (due to lack of "Patty" quality) opinions are all we will ever have, and there is no reason to accept the original claim until something indicates it could be correct. Not only that, all of my images are clear in what they portray and are without the lack of quality and imperfections that make a genuine study of the "Pattyfilm" impossible.

Also unlike the image of your boogyman fantasy that was put forth without any sort of argument, my images need no such plea to ignorance as they are definitive as to what they portray...and my opinion at least has highly trained and objective scientific opinion to support it.

In contrast, you have lot's of hot air based on personal "patty"/boogyman credulity and this...

originally posted by: Masterjaden

I haven't even commented on my stance on the status of the PG film...lol... Again, I've only commented on your obvious shortcomings in logical argument...

Jaden

Yes you have. Your entire argument rests on the premise that the original claim is logical and has validity, as a necessity. Also that my claims have neither of these things.

What you are saying is (rather dishonestly)..."not saying it's bigfoot...but it's bigfoot!". The only thing you have shown or in fact have the possibility of showing, rather obtusely, is that you interpret a rather indistinct two dimensional image, compared to other clearer two dimensional images, a certain way (that allows for a bigfoot)...and your way is the only correct way (according to you).

If you want specific rebuttal, stop being vague, provide something specific. Rather than whinging' back the claim you support.

The animals forehead slopes back too sharply for a human head to fit inside the "mask"

Above is the claim and the image this claim was based on. Below it is compared to the Gemora creature from "The Monster and the Girl". Please point out where "Patty's" forehead slopes sharply, or at all, and how you know this. To make the claim logical to begin with. It seems like a regular distance between the eyes and top of head (a normal human forehead) before it eventually goes back to a prosthetic crest, but really, it seems impossible to claim anything with confidence.

Unlike the Gemora monster, which most definitely does have a sloping forehead as this image angle shows. Nothing about either obviously rules out a person in a costume. Which is obvious to all but a few bigfooters and yourself.

Please, demonstrate where this isn't so and this particular monster, along with any of the others, would be irrelevant. Use any non enhanced image you like, use squiggly lines if necessary.

Demonstrate where the claim you support is logical and therefore valid and why mine is irrelevant. Surely this is the least you could do instead of babbling endlessly?

Then once you demonstrate such a thing exists outside of your imagination, we can begin to compare others.

Go for it.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

The photo you showed has a vertically sloped forehead above the brows...

Jaden

Ps. These are all the very same mask as in the original image, clearly displaying the sloping brow, that you say isn't there. It outdoes "Patty" in every conceivable way. Could you demonstrate why there is a "vertical sloped forehead above the brow" in any of these (including how you were able to deduce brow angle from the first one, which is basically front on), compared to "Patty" who you claim does not have a "vertically sloped forehead above the brow"...and why?

Here (as above) is where you get to not just make claims, but to back your claims.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

I"m done with you, it was fun for a while listening to your meanderings and lack of any reasoning whatsoever, but there's no point in continuing when you don't offer anything worth while. I'm sure in your warped brain, you'll see this as some kind of win, but that's ok.

Really, it's just sad...

I'm not even going to go into the additional fallacy that you brought up in this post...

Jaden

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

I am merely defending Jeff Meldrum's integrity, however couched in ignorance it may be. He truly believes his methods are justified, no matter how obvious to the rest of us they are not. Delusion can be a very powerful and persuasive thing, and while a rare few will admit to having been deluded, I am aware of no one ever admitting that they are deluded, hence appearing incompetent and deceitful while maintaining their integrity.

In truth, science has had nothing to do with cryptozoology ever since it was allegedly coined by Sanderson/Heuvelmans. (The word "cryptozoa" was actually coined by Professor Arthur Dendy in 1895, in his paper, "The Cryptozoic Fauna of Autralasia", which has nothing to do with rumored, non-existent animals). But a few scientists, like Meldrum, sincerely believe they are employing science correctly to support their wishful thinking. There are of course others, like Ketchum, who are out and out liars, who are admittedly the rule more than the exception to the rule, but a few truly believe what they "preach."

I'm just saying, call the liars, liars, and the deluded, deluded. While I completely disagree with Meldrum on the subject of Bigfoot, I found him to be a kind and honorable man, so I feel a bit obligated to defend his integrity.

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: tiger_tts
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

"My avatar is fine, obviously someone in a gorilla costume." - Ummm no, that is a gorilla that has been photo shopped. Did you really think that was a gorilla costume?

Ffs. Hopefully your not trying to find bigfoot from following his sarcasm.

"Why no one has ever found a shred of evidence previously, or since, to indicate bigfoot exists here, or anywhere else? Did bigfoot only exist for one day?" - Wrong, and wrong again. But you will need to review and understand evidence before we can discuss.

Anyway, we were discussing your use of "strawman" arguments - before you went off point.

Anything can be called evidence. Genuine evidence that . . . [Blah, blah , blah]

Actually, I was sincerely worried that you had an unstated handicap and, if so, I did not want to be unkind. But since this is a “software” issue, you should know that dumb statements do not equal sarcasm. You made another dumb statement in the IMAX post where you wrote “. . .(yes it's obviously a person). . .” This was similarly structured phrase but your intended meaning was exactly the opposite of the intended meaning here. It’s just a poor writing FAIL.

You should take a writing class, I am sure that when you are done your brilliance will become apparent to someone other than yourself. (See what I did there - )

Moving on . . .

Your previous mention of “evidence” showed a lack of understanding of what evidence is. This time you came back with “Anything can be called evidence.” Wrong again.

Care to give it another shot? You do? Ok then, “genuine evidence” you say!?! Nope, wrong again. All you did was stick an adjective in front of the word “evidence”. (Although I might have given it to you if you had said “most excellent” evidence or “dead on, balls accurate” evidence.)

But don’t get down on yourself, this is a wonderful example of another one of your “strawman” arguments. If “Anything can be called evidence” then it can all be summarily dismissed. So in a strange, warped way, you have brought us back on point.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

I"m done with you, it was fun for a while listening to your meanderings and lack of any reasoning whatsoever, but there's no point in continuing when you don't offer anything worth while. I'm sure in your warped brain, you'll see this as some kind of win, but that's ok.

Really, it's just sad...

I'm not even going to go into the additional fallacy that you brought up in this post...

Jaden

That's a no then. Thought so.

Similar level of valor and integrity seems to permeate bigfootery. Make lots of noise about looking for bigfoot. When you think you have found bigfoot and therefore have the chance to demonstrate it, drop everything and run in the opposite direction (as you have done from your first post). Continue arguing endlessly that bigfoot exists.


Now that Jaden has turned tail, I would still like anyone to genuinely demonstrate how Patty's forehead slopes back severely. Patterson doesn't seem to mention it anywhere that I could find. He seems to think it looked basically human, apart from having hair right down to the eye sockets and a "peak" at the back. When the man who altered the suit and filmed it doesn't support your point, surely that would make you wonder?

Here's the pseudo science/ forensic artist impression supported by the bigfoot Professor himself. It's rather imaginative and heavily exaggerated to say the least, but where does it slope back so drastically re the fake gorilla type creature?





It seems to slope back less than the Gemora creature. The main difference, apart from Gemoras' effort having a sloping face (which is an archaic hominid feature) as well as brow, would be the hairstyles. Patterson had to stick fur on the forehead, which along with a prosthetic crest, might have something to do with the unnatural line that appears around Patty's head.

Patterson didn't reinvent the wheel. It's very likely he consulted such monsters and tried to mimic certain features. Another Gemora feature on "Patty" is the ridiculous and amateurish "diaper butt" effect he achieved, by trying to pad the suit out so that it wouldn't look floppy.

The biggest problem with demonstrating detail about Patty with any confidence is shown below. This is from the Dahinden cibachromes that are considered good quality. Non enhanced in any way, simply enlarged to roughly the same resolution as the Gemora pic.



It's very unlikely that there is anything unusual at all about Pattys forehead. Certainly nothing that precludes a person in a costume (and a lot that is consistent with just that). These people/effects put Pattys supposedly "sloping forehead" to shame. All normal modern humans without fake masks/headpieces (except the swimmer headpiece). Us modern humans are a diverse bunch.