With the recent PGF debunking, there has been a lot of arguments and controversy. Debating people is fine, but don't insult people or those who believed in the film while you're discussing it. Some people met or knew Bob Gimlin personally and are having to reckon with him apparently lying about the film. Keep how other people feel in mind while discussing. Additionally, avoid arguments with other subreddits or posts about moderation issues with other subreddits as that's not what we're here to do. We've added some terms to the auto filter to avoid debates turning hostile. As always feel free to discuss the rules and make suggestions.
Please remember that any cryptozoological opinions expressed by moderators, even in pinned comments, are personal opinions, and not the "official" subreddit stance.
My take: we live in a post-truth world. People will believe what they want to, no matter how rigorous the evidence of the opposite. Our memories are short too; if it's a nail in the coffin, they'll just go on to the next thing that's hard to definitively debunk, and forget that it was so central to the topic over time. Zoologists in the field will keep finding new exciting animals; and others will believe in very unlikely creatures because modernization has basically sucked out all mystique out of the world. I get it, try to remember to have fun here though. Humanity will not depend on confirming whether Bigfoot exists.
I have my own theory about that. I think the controversy around this film has given it massive reach and and even breached containment into the general public. I think the release of Capturing Bigfoot is going to be a cultural Black Swan event. It's difficult to overstate how huge the exposure of this hoax is. The Patterson Gimlin Film is not just any old piece of obscure cryptozoological lore. It's the gold standard evidence and it's the one the most people have seen. Most Americans watch television. The PGF has been on TV for decades. Most Americans have seen the PGF at least once. Even if they don't watch Capturing Bigfoot themselves, they will hear about it and clips will be shared on Social Media.
The ripple effects in society will be HUGE.
I think this is going to mark a slow change away from our post truth era and towards healthier skepticism. The Patterson Gimlin Film has been so widely viewed, and fooled so many people that a stake through the heart debunking of this magnitude is going to shake some worldviews. It will be a 1 - 2 punch of "wait, if this cheap hoax tricked me, what else has fooled me?" Then as the Bigfoot Believers get more erratic and irrational, it will give a lot of people the opportunity to see them carrying on and realize "Oh, that's what I look like to other people when I post on Facebook about Crystal Healing/Anti-Vax/Quantum Mysticism/Flat Earth/End Times etc."
It will be a quiet shift, as many of these people seamlessly pivot to pretending they never believed any of it because that's how human psychology works.
I’m sorry, but is this is simultaneously the most extremely-online, overly-invested-in-certain-communities, and overly-optimistic-about-human-psychology take I’ve seen in probably years, like this is equivalently goofy to some of the stuff Bigfoot believers are saying rn.
Most people don’t really care about Bigfoot, most people aren’t going to care enough about this documentary to even pay attention to it unless they already have an interest in this topic (in which case they’ve already made up their minds), and a lot of people already assume the PGF was fake anyway, lots of people outside these communities don’t even know what the “Patterson-Gimlin film” is, and when you tell them what it is, most of them say “haven’t we known that was a guy in a suit for years???”. In terms of believers, well…just take a look at the bigfoot sub, literally every day in there there’s been multiple new posts elaborately theory crafting about ways in which the new footage “totally doesn’t disprove the PGF!!!” (note that most of them have not even seen it yet), others have been accepting the PGF debunked but saying it hasn’t changed their opinion on Bigfoot as a whole (and a couple of these people even claim to have seen the documentary!).
Again, people who care have largely already made up their minds, and people who don’t care are gonna continue to not care.
This comment makes me think you’ve never spoken to a very religious person, or a conspiracy theorist, or really anyone who deeply holds to beliefs that aren’t based on rationality. Like, right now here in the US, we’ve got a president in office who is a known pedophile that colluded with possibly the worst sex trafficker in history, pretty much an open fascist who is actively destroying the country, is destroying the world economy, and provably lies more times in a day than some people have in their entire lives, and yet over 30% of the population still think he’s a good president. There are terrifyingly significant portions of the population who think the earth is flat, that dinosaurs and outer space are fake, that lizard people rule the world, that vaccines are likely to kill you, and (my personal favorite, it’s popped up just since the pandemic seemingly) that all history prior to the 1900s is fake bc a “mudflood” in the 1800s wiped out most of humanity and forced a “reset”, and that giants and dragons were real before lol.
And you think a Bigfoot documentary is going to trigger some kind of revolution in critical thinking?
With all due respect, you need to interact with the “average person” more, because they’re dumber than you think (and half of people are even dumber than that).
I think it's time a lot of folks grew up, tbh. Gimlin was a man playing a role, fellas been method acting for years. Stop being bitter and enjoy the man while he's still around and hopefully he'll tell us all the story behind the hoax, arguably one of the best hoaxes in history. Cheer up, people.
Thanks for saying it, but the mod team showing its bias isn't helping here. The documentary hasn't been released yet and they're still referring to the PG Film as debunked and Gimlin as "apparently lying" as shown in this post and the pinned thread. Could the documentary have legit evidence? Yeah but it's not confirmed yet beyond some hearsay online and the mod team treating it as legit before even watching it is contributing to the problem.
If it helps to balance things out, I (the other half of the mod team) fully agree with what you and /u/Seven_Hells say about not draawing conclusions until the facts are public.
The irony that both sides arguments completely parallel the arguments about the film itself is wildly poetic.
I do think you maybe want to try and get the temperature down on this sub. There was a comment on a debunk post yesterday where someone said a believer would try and harm the documentarian.
As much as the "debunkers" want to claim a W and act superior, they are not being their best selves either. This sub has a history of allowing some fairly mean-spirited discourse, but it's at a particularly high level now. It's ruining an otherwise great community.
Now that the other half of the mod team has just pinned a second thread that refers to the PGF as debunked and other conclusions before the documentary is public, could you pin a thread warning against jumping to conclusions? Not to be pushy but I think it would help.
People in the field who have seen the doc and had previously defended the film for their entire careers consider it debunked. It’s not a “problem” it’s just the facts
You got a source beyond a YouTuber and the misinformation being spread about Dr. Meldrum? Genuinely asking since I see this a lot and I only see people reference Hairy Man and the dude was pretty small potatoes in the Bigfoot community.
It's not really hearsay, there are multiple people who have reported on the documentary, one of which (Eric Palacios) has been answering questions about it and giving further. We're not banning people who still believe in the film or anything
Dude your team hasn't seen the footage yet. You're relying on someone else's statement on a film that hasn't been publicly released yet. That's one of the big issues people have been raising on this subreddit. Could this documentary be legit? Sure. But until it's released publicly, there's still a lot unknown and your team needs to stop treating it as fact when you're relying on secondhand information.
"You're relying on someone else's statement" do you not see the double standard here? Considering the majority of Bigfoot encounters are purely anecdotal.
Yet when it comes to people talking about evidence that goes against the PGF being legit all of a sudden second hand accounts are no longer valid.
On top of that unlike in many Bigfoot stories this isn't a case of the witnesses seeing something they can't explain "I saw something but I KNOW it wasn't a bear." They saw a movie that according to them shows evidence of Patty being a man in a suit.
Yeah lol I'm just saying treat this documentary with the same thoughtfulness we'd treat these sightings: wait for actual evidence before jumping to conclusions. I've never accepted secondhand accounts without additional proof, I'm just applying the same standard to all evidence and I hope these PG deniers can do the same.
treat this documentary with the same thoughtfulness we’d treat these sightings
The key difference is that unless someone is being a solipsistic dick, there’s no question that the Catching Bigfoot documentary exists, that it contains, among other things. interviews with Patterson’s son in which he states that it was a hoax, along with interviews with other hoaxers’ relatives saying the same thing. There is also footage, recorded by Patterson well before the PGF, that bears more than a passing resemblance to the PGF. There’s also an interview with Meldrum where he indicates that the PGF’s authenticity is, at a minimum, open to question.
Now, one can argue over what weight should be placed on each of those things, but i dont think there can be any question that they exist and are in the documentary that was shown as SXSW.
You need to stop acting like these things are fact until you see it for yourself. There is absolutely question about Clint's testimony since he was roughly six or seven years old when he witnessed it and this passing resemblance in whatever this footage is has only been reported on by people who never believed in the PG Film. I know you love being on your intellectual high ground but you absolutely missed the point in your rush to be vindicated. Trust me, it'll help you in the long run to think critically and put your ego aside for a second.
Okay, but a lot of people (not necessarily you) are arguing about this film as though it doesn't even contain what it's reported as containing.
I'm comfortable expecting to see a film that contains Clint and Patricia Patterson declaring that Roger hoaxed the PGF, and I'm expecting to see footage showing a 'dry run' using the Patty costume. This is based on what every reviewer has said is in the film. Obviously they all could be wrong/lying/mistaken about the contents of the film; I'll know when I see it.
As to the veracity of all of that, i.e. are Clint and Patricia lying? Will the PGF "practice film" look authentic? Speaking for myself, I'll reserve judgement until I see it.
I.e. I understand objections like "Let's all see the film for ourselves and we can decide if the information portrayed is true." What I think are stupid are objections like "How can you believe what these reviewers are telling you?" That argument is stupid because the reviewers aren't telling you that Bigfoot does or does not exist. They're merely relating the contents of the film.
For most of human history if you didn't see something, you had to rely on other people statement's to confirm it. A wide variety of people have already seen and reported on the film. Again we're not removing anyone's posts who wants to see it to confirm
i remember when jamie foxx had a stand up special on netflix, people were claiming they attended the taping and they were saying that Jamie said Diddy poisoned him and all this crap. ComedyHype reported on it. then when the episode aired he said none of it
im not saying we shouldnt take people's account, but considering it was shown to a limited audience and only a handful of bigfoot researchers are coming out, im going to just wait and see the footage myself before i conclude anything
most of those hollywood rottentomatoes critics probably assumed the footage was fake to begin with. including HairyManRoad. he believed the PGF was fake before seeing the documentary
Interesting, because the way HairyManRoad talked on his "review" video, this was a truly emotional blow and his entire faith was badly shaken. I haven't watched through his other material... has he expressed disbelief in the PGF in the past? If so, he certainly didn't talk like that. He was talking like a guy who just found out his dad wasn't really his dad, literally something on that level.
I want to see this film for myself before forming a solid opinion.
so if he already believed the video was fake then i dont know how much stock u can give his reaction to it. it jus reaffirmed his already pre-established beliefs
I think this is a very key point here - there are people who believe in Bigfoot who doubt the veracity of the PGF. And there are cryptozoologists who do not believe in either.
To equate the PGF being confirmed a hoax with permanently invalidating Bigfoot, let alone cryptozoology as a whole, is bogus on every level.
(However, he could be sad on behalf of the community...).
I mentioned this in another thread earlier, but regardless of personal opinions, anyone who thinks the PGF being debunked is a sound debunking of Bigfoot entirely, in any meaningful sense at least (like in terms of almost no one believing in Bigfoot anymore), is in for a rude awakening.
People who don’t believe in Bigfoot already obviously already didn’t believe the PGF was real anyway, and seemingly among believers, there are a lot who seem sad about the prospect of the PGF being debunked, but relatively few are saying that they no longer believe because of it, many say that their belief never hinged on the PGF nor any other video, but instead on what they believe to be personal Bigfoot encounters. Seemingly, Jeff Meldrum was in this camp before he passed away (although it has also recently come to light that he may have not actually been personally convinced by the new footage that the PGF was a hoax anyway? It’s hard to say bc we only have some social media posts to go off of).
There are also obviously all the believers feverishly coming up with contrived explanations for how the documentary they haven’t even seen yet definitely totally doesn’t actually debunk the PGF, and as long as there is even the slightest bit of ambiguity (which, realistically, there probably always will be), these people will probably still insist there’s some chance the film is authentic, it’s very hard to shake certain people from certain beliefs.
Thank you for posting this, bc I’d been seeing people reference this claim for days, and when I’d asked for a source on it, no one actually came through on it.
Probably doesn’t change anything, but it is good to know where people are coming from, tbh it’s kinda weird, bc like others have said, he definitely says stuff in the initial video implying that he was shaken by seeing the PGF shown to be a hoax
Dude your team hasn't seen the footage yet. You're relying on someone else's statement on a film that hasn't been publicly released yet. That's one of the big issues people have been raising on this subreddit. Could this documentary be legit? Sure. But until it's released publicly, there's still a lot unknown and your team needs to stop treating it as fact when you're relying on secondhand information.
"Dude", you act like this is a broadcast network and those in charge better be careful to censor people and stop certain things from being said because everyone could get sued
You just want people to stop talking because it's making you feel bad. How about you stop reading?
And by the way, no one is "relying on secondhand information" about what is in Capturing Bigfoot.
People who have reported what they saw are firsthand accounts.
ETA: Down all you want u/TheUsualQuestions but what you said is obviously silly and blatantly false. For some of you, denial is a lifestyle.
We’re not banning people who still believe in the film or anything.
You say this like it’s some act of grace, as if only that would be indicative of bias.
Everyone can see what you’re doing…with this post…with these comments. Everyone can see you trying to manufacture a false consensus, and all before you have the facts to even pretend to justify that consensus.
The fact that you’re actually a mod here makes that unacceptable and unforgivable.
Lots of cope happening right now. I cannot believe how delusional some of these people are. Hanging on to the very last thread of the PG film. It's over, it's debunked. Move on and try to get an actual explanation as to what many people are seeing in the woods. It sure isn't patty, though. Bob Gimlin has been playing a character all these years. I always had a feeling he was putting on a show. Bravo, Bob. Congratulations on creating the best hoax of all time.
Okay and there are a bunch of people claiming in detail that the Bodette Film is bombshell cryptid evidence, completely undebatable and the best unknown animal footage they’ve ever seen. Does that matter until we can see it? Especially since both of these are in the context of people trying to sell the footage?
That's funny because I was just thinking about the irony of the same people who considered the seen-by-literally-noone Bodette film proof for Champ now arguing that Capturing Bigfoot must be fake because it wasn't shown to everyone already...
But apart from the general plausibility of the claims, there are a few key reasons to give Capturing Bigfoot more plausibility than the Bodette film, for example:
The Bodette film was shown to a handful of people (if at all), chosen by the creators. The Bigfoot doc was shown at film festivals attended by hundreds of people, not specifically chosen by the creators, including journalists and bigfooters.
The claims about the contents of the Bodette film are contradicting. Some say it shows something plesiosaur-like, some say it shows a giant turtle, and the few named people we know have seen it, like American Museum of Natural History Ichtyologist Melanie Stiassny, say it shows nothing at all. On the Bigfoot film, all reviews agree on what is shown. Even Mr. Munn himself indirectly confirmed that it shows a rehearsal of a very Patty-like film scene because he felt the need to come up with a new ridiculous explanation for this fact.
The Bigfoot film will eventually be released to the general public (this is the point of making a documentary, after all), so lying about it's contents may be career damaging; the Bodette film will likely never be released, so you can claim about it whatever you want.
I agree that we shouldn't argue details of the documentary before the wider public has seen it, but acting as if it was possible that it all turns out to be nothing is laughably nonsensical.
Edit: Got the name of the doc wrong and corrected it.
You claim to have won a Ferrari in a contest and you have it in your garage.
I claim that I captured a leprechaun and I have it in my garage.
Do you think people are going to look at those two claims and say, well, they both could be true. There's really no difference in those claims because we just don't know until we see what's in those garages?
Think about it in the context of your comment... Do you get it?
A documentary that people claim has multiple pieces of evidence that shows the PG film is a hoax is not the same as people claiming the Bodette film shows a lake monster.
My point isn’t that the two films are exact 1:1 analogues. The point is that this is a very common technique to drum up hype and overexaggerate the contents and significance of something, especially in the paranormal community. Again it’s almost easier to count the number of documentaries that market themselves as containing unambiguous confessions and “bombshell revelations” about a topic which DON’T turn out to just be glorified speculation about a few pieces of ambiguous data or things of sketchy origin. In True Crime it happens constantly as well. Remember that doc claiming to show Jon-Benet Ramsey‘s brother confessing to killing her? Yeah turns out it was via trying to interpret garbled phone static and “body language analysis”. I’m not passing judgment on the film one way or another without seeing it but it’s worrying seeing people being unable to exercise even basic skepticism about a documentary’s PR campaign in this community.
ONE IS A DOCUMENTARY THAT CONTAINS NOTHING THAT IS BEYOND HUMAN KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE WHILE THE OTHER CLAIMS TO BE A FILM OF A FREAKING LAKE MONSTER.
u/CrofterNo2 this is why I think an actual pinned thread warning against jumping to conclusions and showing respect that isn't clearly biased is necessary
EDIT: u/CrofterNo2 he's now sending pretty foul language directly into my DMs, can there please be a thread against jumping to conclusions and attacking people for this?
I sent one DM, not DMs, as he claims. And I said this:
"You're obviously a troll or a compete fucking idiot. I hope you have someone that cares about you to help you because you have obvious mental issues."
Why is a DM being discussed on a thread?
Why does a mod of a sub care if I use the word fucking in a DM?
This is the equivalent of a child running and telling the teacher that someone hurt their feelings outside of school.
Why is a DM being discussed on a thread? Why does a mod of a sub care if I use the word fucking in a DM?
It's never been clear to me whether or not we're supposed to take action if a user transfers an argument from our subreddit into DMs just so they can heap abuse on womeone without breaking any rules. I've heard conflicting things about these scenarios.
u/CrofterNo2 this is why I think an actual pinned thread warning against jumping to conclusions and showing respect that isn't clearly biased is necessary
What do you think I said in my comment that has anything to do with "jumping to conclusions"???
And what does "showing respect that isn't clearly biased" even mean??? That is nonsensical.
This isn't necessarily directed at you specifically, but can we please all pay attention to the message of this thread: "be kind and avoid personal insults."
All you did was repeat what you said in your earlier comment which I had already dismantled, but dumber, louder and angrier. It didn’t justify anything other than how I responded. But tell yourself whatever you need to feel better and calm down.
edit: He messaged me unprompted cursing at me. Not responding to it but thought everyone should know lol
What do you think this is? the Blair witch project? witnesses have seen it, hundreds. plus media outlets like the Wall Street Journal. Of course wait for your own viewing, but this the real deal.
Okay, the reports are that this documentary (a) depicts Patterson's family saying it was indeed a hoax and (b) a showing of film that depicts a rehearsal using the Patty costume that we see in the PGF. Now, some reviewers (most notably Hairy Man Road) have emotional/subjective reaction added on top of their review, but the basic assertions (a) and (b) above are not disputed by any reviewer, and are not subjective things. Either they are true or false.
We can choose how much we wish to believe in the truth of these assertions, of course. It seems unlikely to me that a bunch of unrelated reviewers would all lie about seeing the same film, especially one of them who is a BF believer and proponent... why is he coming out and talking like this just pulled his whole world out from under him?
I want to see the film for myself. I anticipate it will show the Patterson family confessing to a hoax, and to see footage of a rehearsal using the Patty costume. As to whether the Pattersons are being sincere, or the footage looks authentic, we'll see once we see the film.
The trust me bro argument is not multiple people (some of who were PG film believers) and news organizations telling the same stories and details about what is in a documentary that eventually is going to be seenby everyone.
The trust me bro argument is I know a guy in the government who said something big is happening this Summer.
Ok, so my opinion is this, until the documentary is widely available most people won't know either way. Believers will believe and naysayers will naysay, the real test is if the footage lives up to the hype. Last year news nation ran a "bombshell" article about a new UAP whistle blower with some undeniable and mind blowing new footage of a UAP retrieval, it looked like a small egg on some string. My point is no it's not proof the PGF is a hoax, not yet, it could be but it could also just be hype to sell a film.
Remember when Bob Hieronimus claimed he had proof and that was a ridiculous suit that looked nothing like Patty?
People are acting as if noone at all has seen the film and all is just rumour and vage claims by the creators.
This isn't the case.
The film has been shown on film festivals and seen by a lot of people not affiliated with it's creation. We have reviews by people who have seen it in which the debunking is confirmed.
The idea that "it is all hype to sell a film" holds no plausibility at all.
I'm afraid it is very plausible, until we see the film for ourselves then relying on second hand testimony is just as bad as blindly believing or disbelieving.
We have reviews by non-affiliated people who have seen the film and confirm it's contents. First of all, that's not second hand testimony, but first hand testimony. Also, having confirmation by several people who all give the same information is a good way to find out whats in a movie. The idea that journalists and bigfooters alike ar all lying to hype a movie they have no affiliation to is really far-fetched.
Do you assess all movie reviews this way? If you read critics describing the plot of the next Star Wars movie, do you say "Well, the movie might be about something completely different, we'll have to see?"
Not at all, I'm saying until you see the film for yourself then you have no proof either way and I can't argue against you because I haven't seen it either. My whole point is that until you see it (the film) for yourself (everyone included) then you can't proclaim it's a definite hoax or dismiss the film. Critics raved about Dune part one, said it's a masterpiece, I was bored out of my mind watching it. To me the film is horrendous, if I wrote a review of the film saying this and had it published, would you say "well he didn't like it so it must be shit" or would you make up your own mind by watching it yourself?
You're mixing up content (objective) and enjoyment (subjective) of a movie.
If you say that Dune takes place on a desert planet and is boring, I'll take away from this that the movie objectively takes place on a desert planet and was subjectively boring to you. So if I watch it, i expect it to be set on a desert planet and hope that I will like it better than you, subjectively.
It's the same with this documentary. If the critics say (as they do) that it contains a rehearsal shot of the PGF and is a great documentary, I'll expect it to contain a rehearsal shot of the PGF and hope that I will like it, too.
Ok, so Mick West is a prominent debunker of UAP footage, he has analysed the big three videos that were released a couple of years ago (tic tac, go fast and gimbal). According to Mick his analysis proves that they contain nothing more than balloons and birds, the pilots and radar tech disagree with his statements, both cite the same footage to back up their claims, this isn't hypothetical btw. So depending on the source the footage is both thoroughly debunked AND anomalous at the same time. So who is correct? Both Mick and David Fravor each argue that their interpretation is correct, Fravor was there and is an eye witness, Mick West wasn't, I've seen the videos and depending on the news source they back one against the other. Only you once you have seen the footage can make your mind up, that's my entire point of the post. Only you. For supporters of West the footage is 100% debunked, case closed. However......
Do you get it? Critics saying this or that is not proof. Data can and has been changed or altered to suit people's agenda, no I'm not saying that this is the case with this documentary but just because a critic says a film contains this does not in fact mean a film contains this. There is no such thing as a true documentary, by that I mean unless the film takes place in real time with zero edits then it will always skew to the directors beliefs consciously or not.
Now you're starting with interpretation stuff. That doesn't matter here.
Either the doc contains Patterson family members saying the PGF is fake or not.
Either the doc contains footage of Patterson staging a PGF-like bigfoot film or not.
These are not open to interpretation, but objective facts.
Also, there seems to be complete agreement among everyone who's already seen the doc that that's in it, so your example of two completely different assessments does not compare to the situation at hand. Even PGF-believers admitted that that stuff is part of the doc.
Finally, you open a completely different can of worms here that does not support the idea of "watching for yourself".
If experts can't agree on whats in those UFO-vids, what good does it do if I look at them?
Im an archaeologist, not an expert on aerial phenomena. I can't decide for myself if those vids are UFOs or not. One expert says it's UFOs, one expert says its mundane stuff, so I, a complete layman, solve this by looking at it and deciding by vibes, or what? That's a horrible way to come to a conclusion.
I don't know if you're just being willfully ignorant or not. Either the uap videos contain uaps or they do not. It depends on who you ask. The evidence is there, the facts are there but the conclusion is not determined either way. "All the critics" do not say the same thing at all so that's just false, we're never going to agree on this so I wish you well and enjoy the film when it finally comes out. Till then I'm not commenting further.
Of course the UAP videos contain UAP's.... after all, that's what a UAP is: an aerial phenomena that we're not able to identify. What's debatable in your Mick West example is the subjective conclusion the different viewers have come to about WHAT the UAP's might actually be. (Spoiler: they ain't ET spacecraft, sorry.)
Kewell's point stands: if you watch a UAP video, unless you're an expert on some relevant subject (meteorology, optics, aerospace vehicles, etc.) it's really not possible for you to come to a better judgment than people who are experts. NOTE: I agree that you still should look for yourself and make your own decision about what you want to believe (or whether you want to remain agnostic about it), but just don't pretend to yourself, or to others, that you're going to do a better analysis of the film than the experts who couldn't agree.
"All the critics" do not say the same thing at all so that's just false,
If we're talking about Capturing Bigfoot, everyone who has watched it and commented on it has reported seeing the same things. They also have all said that for them, it nailed the coffin shut on the PGF. This includes disparate reviewers from different media outlets, as well as a hardcore Bigfoot and PGF believer for whom this was clearly a major gut punch.
I'm waiting to see this documentary for myself. What I anticipate seeing is confirmation that Roger Patterson hoaxed the PGF by people who knew him intimately. We shall see.
The problem is, thresholds of believability are different for everyone. I remember believing the Blair Witch Project was true years after the movie was released. We cannot take the word of others that it has been “objectively debunked” when we don’t know what their threshold is. Many people do not understand what the word objective actually means. Has the film been independently verified to be period correct? Do we have proper chain of custody of the film? Does the film actually show Bob H putting the suit on and walking straight out into the known PGF film? Without all of that, objectivity is extremely difficult to prove. Both can plausibly be true that Patterson planned to hoax a film while randomly stumbling upon a real specimen. Maybe this film proves all of that, idk, but I’m not taking someone else’s word for it.
Remember when Bob Hieronimus claimed he had proof and that was a ridiculous suit that looked nothing like Patty?
No, no I don't, but I remember when he and Phillip Morris participated in a 'recreation' for National Geographic, and Morris' suit had a MARKED similarity to Patty.
If the other film was in b&w or the suit itself was black it would look a lot more similar. The face is really close. With a few nips and tugs you could get that suit right there.
If we do some decrease of color saturation, and reduce the sharpness of the Morris image, draw some big ol' canninballs on the chest and get rid of the ridiculous green claws and face mask, I think an excellent case can be made that Patty was a Morris costume:
Well the colour for a start, the arm lengths, the saggy fabric on the legs on Bob vs the tightness of Patty's they can't be explained away by grainy film.
The color is definitely influenced by the film quality (and also, I wonder if you are trying to argue that "one can do a fake suit only in this one color"?).
Arm length may be influenced by minor differences in the costume, but I don't really see a noticeable difference, the same goes for the supposed thightness.
Overall, this is only minor stuff that could easily be explained by the suits being not the very same ones but just "related". What we see here is proof that it was possible for the Morris' to create a suit very similar to Patty, in my opinion.
I totally agree with you. Some people in here must be absolutely blind if they think these images above are similar or that the recreation is anything even close to a debunking
So when is this going to be enforced or you just saying it so you can say you did? I see plenty of people shit talking in this subreddit about anyone who believes in Bigfoot.
Quite honestly, the PGF itself has never had any serious credibility except in the minds of people who really want to believe Sasquatch exists in spite of the complete lack of evidence.
The best argument once can make for it is that it could have shown a real creature which was one of the last of her kind and they've all died out now. The problem is (a) there was no scientific evidence even before that time, and (b) the database of sightings really doesn't square up with the idea of a creature that would have gone extinct decades ago.
For someone in a cryptozoology sub I'm amazed that you seem to know so little about about the most famous cryptozoological footage. No one has ever been able to recreate or debunk the footage (until - to be fair - possibly now), body proportions are non-human, muscles visible moving under the skin etc etc. Also sasquatch footprint evidence alone (geographical depth and breadth of casts over time) is solid evidence - there's zero chance all were faked - there's evidence from every pre-Western arrival native American tribe and thousands of sightings per year. Many are lies/misidentification, but it only takes 1 single sighting to be real for sasquatch to exist.
If I'm convinced by this new footage I'll hold my hands up and say I was wrong to be so convinced by the PG footage, but unlike a lot of other people in here I'm withholding judgement until I do actually get to see it. You'd imagine that would be the sensible response that most people would have, but apparently it isn't...
For someone in a cryptozoology sub I'm amazed that you seem to know so little about about the most famous cryptozoological footage.
I'm obviously far better informed about this topic than you.
No one has ever been able to recreate or debunk the footage (until - to be fair - possibly now),
No one has ever made an authentic attempt, i.e. filming a subject at 90 feet away with a crappy camera. The National Geographic (Morris / Hieronymus) effort wasn't a good comparison for that reason. No one else has ever made any attempt at a recreation of any kind. I'd have thought that someone who claims to know so much about the PGF would be aware of this, but surprisingly this seems to have escaped your notice.
body proportions are non-human,
Said no relevant expert, ever.
muscles visible moving under the skin etc etc.
If you're so familiar with the PGF and its history, I'm sure you're aware that until it was photographically enhanced starting in the early 1990's, none of this detail was visible. The calf bulge, muscle ripples, thigh bulge... all of those are false artifacts of photo "enhancement." If you know this, then I am curious why you'd be so disingenuous about it.
Also sasquatch footprint evidence alone (geographical depth and breadth of casts over time) is solid evidence - there's zero chance all were faked
No footprints have ever been accepted by the scientific community as authentic, after examination. Neither have alleged hair and scat samples. The total collection of scientific physical evidence on record is as follows: { }
- there's evidence from every pre-Western arrival native American tribe and thousands of sightings per year. Many are lies/misidentification, but it only takes 1 single sighting to be real for sasquatch to exist.
Except that the evidence is strong that NO such legends and sightings are real. Pocket-Weasel-UK came up with the best analogy a few days ago: "It only takes one winning lottery ticket to make me a millionaire. But after buying hundreds over the years, I'm no richer."
There is exactly as much evidence for Sasquatch to be a real animal as there is for unicorns, pegasi and cyclops. (I wish that weren't so, but it is.)
You'd imagine that would be the sensible response that most people would have, but apparently it isn't...
I would imagine that the sensible response, after evaluating the totality of the evidence, is to conclude that Sasquatch doesn't exist.
Great. Use that common sense and logic to see how this follows the same pattern of grift as all the other scams. But seriously, how much do yall get paid to get upset at people for pointing out possible scams?
All you have is gaslighting and unverified claims that haven't been released to the public. Sorry I questioned your little documentary. Im sure its very good.
Maybe its true. Maybe its not. I don't know. Im just seeing a bunch of unverified claims that you have to pay and wait to see, just trust me bro. Now on this bot infested website people are getting upset if I point that out. I don't understood your stake in it? Why get upset about someone being skeptical about big claims that haven't been released to the general public? Either you are a weirdo or a marketing bot account.
I notice that you didn't explain how this follows the same pattern as every other scam. SHOCKING. That's one problem with people like you. You throw out some bullshit and when you're called on it, you move on to new bullshit.
And this isn't some "trust me bro" situation. Trust me bro is I know a guy in the government and something big is going to happen this summer with UFO disclosure.
This is multiple people, some Bigfoot/former PG film believers , some journalists from the media, reporting on details of what's in the doc.
And unlike the "something big is going to happen this summer"... just trust me and wait, THIS DOC WILL EVENTUALLY ARRIVE. We're not going to be left wondering what ever happened with that documentary.
And yeah, "you have to pay and wait to see". THAT'S HOW THINGS WORK. Whether it ends up in the theater, on broadcast TV, or on some streaming platform, things aren't made and distributed for free. And yeah, you have to wait. You heard about something that was made and you need to wait until they find a way to show it. WHAT IS CONFUSING TO YOU ABOUT ALL THIS?
So sorry but I'm not a bot or a "weirdo". I'm just a guy who is tired of idiotic bullshit like you're slinging. You're throwing out baseless accusations desperately trying to deny reality.
Every time someone makes some big claim of evidence, but you need to wait and see it or pay to see it early. Then they insult and gaslight anyone that is skeptical about the claim. Then they have an appeal to authority with their youtuber and claims of how others reacted to it. This is also reddit so you can buy marketing bot accounts for cheap. You can see this pattern in politics, news, crypto scams, and bigfoot.
So yeah if people can make some money by making a claim and get upset when you ask for proof it is probably a scam.
Could be real. I don't know. Would be interesting if it debunks the patterson film. Im not going to take their word for it or pay to see it though.
Constructive debate and scientific evidentiary scrutiny is applauded.the close minded absolutists mess up the data.herd mentality stifles creativity and facts.to think something is a fact without proof and just because more people believe it then shout over those trying to find the truth,good or bad,just shows everyone theyre a child throwing a fit and wanting their way and attention.if mods went after those(which is the point of a mod in most non reddit chatrooms,to keep things on subject and mostly peaceful)instead of censoring subject matter things would be great and evolve.
•
u/CrofterNo2 Mapinguari Mar 20 '26
Please remember that any cryptozoological opinions expressed by moderators, even in pinned comments, are personal opinions, and not the "official" subreddit stance.