Comments on: Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot = A Hairy Human?

By: Richard7632

Richard7632 — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 11:08:58 +0000

I am not sure if you are a lawyer or not but I can tell you right now the evidence you are showing here on youtube would not hold up as hard evidence as a matter of fact you would be laughed at in court and the Judge would say to you that this evidence is just your opinion and he would class it as hearsay but as far as the bigfoot existence and whether or not it exist or not and the one thing you have going in your favor is the fact that no existence of any bigfoot remains or bones or hair or any DNA evidence at all has been found. Now that in itself is saying that there is something wrong with this picture isn’t there now either the bigfoot have some sort of ritual where the burn there dead and then crush there bones to dust and then discard there bone dust into a river to get rid of any evidence or it is quite safe to say that they don’t exist. Now just using a bit of common sense everyone in the 60s could tell you that the planet of the apes was a big thing on TV at the time so in all honesty if someone wanted to make an easy dollar and GIMLIN and PATTERSON had been into this bigfoot idea for years so they had years of planning something if they wanted to set up a bigfoot on camera. Regardless of how convincing the footage can be to people anyone in hollywood or who was involved in costume designing for the movies will be able to tell you themselves that any costume to make is possible depending on how much time and money they have to put into the costume and to say it couldn’t be done in the 60s is rubbish i mean all you have to do is look at the planet of the apes. Also another fact is that most of these sightings are coming from America and it is well know that America is notorious for owning guns and nearly everyone has one in America so on those facts also i find it hard to believe that nobody has not shot one yet especially with all of these reports coming in on bigfoot stating of how large the bigfoot is. With this fact also I find it still very hard to believe that they actually exist. So unless the bigfoot have been specially trained in hiding themselves and for the them to deceive even professional trackers who follow there footprints and lead them on a ghost trail of non existence then 1 would come to a conclusion that they do not exist. I think everyone who questions the existence of bigfoot should remember how both SUPERMAN and also the Amityville horror started they were both made up up by people who were interested in making up a character or characters and fueling people with this new idea which makes people skeptical and also at the same time very entertaining and all of these things are the perfect recipe for revenue and a money making idea that goes into the favor of whoever makes it up. If people really want to know if Bigfoot is real then my advice is go and check Gimlin and Pattersons tax records and see for yourself how much money they have made from there footage because if I had captured footage of a bigfoot and the footage was skeptical but i was swearing on my grave that I had actually come across a bigfoot for real the 1st thing I would do is tell everyone that I do not want a cent from anything or anyone and I would happily show and give the footage to anyone who wished to see it free of charge and by doing this it will show people that I am for real and I am not doing it for any financial gain for myself or my family. This way of doing it would also be classed as strong evidence in a court because the other side of the argument can not argue that I am doing it for financial gain and this is why most scientist and skeptics haven’t taken the Gimlin Patterson footage to seriously its not a matter of how convincing the footage is or how much it does really look like a different kind of species that human beings have ever encountered the 1st thing that courts, lawyers, scientists, and skeptics look at is there tax records and how and if they are trying to market it straight away after they have shot the footage. Now I can tell you right now if I had come up with an idea that could make me a fortune in my favor I can tell you and the whole world that I would stand there and swear black and blue to everyone and I would even train myself not to flinch for a second when being questioned about it and tell everyone that I was telling the truth if I knew I was going to make a mint from it. Also another clue is that Patterson died of cancer in 72 id be very interested in finding out when he was diagnosed with cancer because I can tell you right now if I knew I was dying of cancer and only had a few years left to live i would try anything to make myself a fortune because I am dying anyway so I have nothing to lose so who gives a f%$# what anyone thinks of me once I’m dead I would do my best I could to try and make my life as easy and as fun as I could well thats just what I would do if I was dying.

By: worlok

worlok — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:09:36 +0000

It’s a guy in a suit. Didn’t you guys see the NG channel “Is it Real?” episode when they tracked down the guy who claims it was him in the suit? He is big enough and has the exact same walk as that so called Bigfoot. He was hired by Patterson to wear the suit but they never paid him. When you see this guy walk you just know it’s him and this was the best hoax ever.

It’s a big ol’ cowboy in a bigfoot suit.

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 22:45:01 +0000

Here's a quick review of M. K. Davis' remarks to try to understand the essence of what he's saying (click on link below): What's Being Said?

By: BendyWVa

BendyWVa — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 03:14:43 +0000

I am very interested in the notion that Big Foot is human. I think it is very possible. I mean why not? We come in all colors, shapes, and sizes anyway, some of us are rather hairy. Why couldn’t there be a hairy race of humans ?

By: sausage1

sausage1 — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:52:24 +0000

This is a tease a la Johor. That doesn’t mean it is not an interesting and possibly true notion, but why all the flimflammery?

By: shumway10973

shumway10973 — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:11:23 +0000

human? Where do we draw the line? What are the standards anymore for seperating humans from the animals? Its head doesn’t look human, its arms are a little hairy (not to mention the rest of the body)… If human, then I would say something more towards Neanderthal.

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:49:27 +0000

Please keep comments on topic about MK Davis’ past work and his current “press release,” the proposed Holdbrook motion picture, the human versus non-human notion, and this posting specifically. Avoid getting off-track into a discussion about the Patterson-Gimlin footage in general or about the search for Sasquatch in general. Those comments will be deleted.

By: sadisticgreen

sadisticgreen — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:42:43 +0000

Does M.K.Davis mean Human as in Homo-sapiens? Surely that can’t be right. I’ve, occasionally, pondered over whether or not B/F could be a later evolutionary stage of Neanderthal but to suggest that the creature in the P/G footage is “completely human” seem a little unlikely. It looks nothing like a human!

By: MattBille

MattBille — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:07:30 +0000

It’s tempting to think of the critter in the film, or sasquatch in general, as some kind of human simply because of its success in eluding both searches and the incidental threats of human presence (elk hunters, logging trucks, etc.) This seems impossible for a non-human ape (gorillas and chimps haven’t succeeded in so totally eluding human searchers and hunters in areas where humans have penetrated) but not quite impossible for a creature with a human brain.

That said, the P-G film creature doesn’t look like a human being to me, or to any of the more qualified people who have viewed the film and written about it. I still go back to Napier on this. He wrote of the film: “either it is America’s abominable snowman, or a man in a monkey suit.” Either an unknown primate, or a fake.

By: fuzzy

fuzzy — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:00:59 +0000

After my #2 comment, “Human, schmuman…doesn’t change a thing for the searchers”…

#51 alanborky asked: …what’s the big deal about ‘proving’ it’s ‘human’?

and #42 WVBIG_2006 observed: If M.K. is correct, the new goal for Bigfoot researchers should be to locate groups of these so-called “hairy humans” so anthropologists, biologists, & geneticists can study them.

and many others suggested possible scientific and governmental ramifications, I must iterate that the REAL work would still be done by the independent searchers, lugging tons of gear around ruggedly remote areas, trudging resolutely through wildlands with equipment at the ready, freezing their body parts as they squat in some dark forest, trying to sleep with rain crashing onto their tiny tent, or sitting around campfires, clutching coffee cups and exchanging trench-tales with others of their kind.

Until there’s clear, scientifically -supported evidence and appropriate financial backing, those “anthropologists, biologists, & geneticists” will continue to ignore all the reports and rumors and radical rumblings, so MKD’s movie had better have the goods, or…

It won’t change a thing for the searchers.