Comments on: Kicking Bigfoot – The Patterson Film and M.K. Davis stabilization enhancements

By: Jesus Christ

Jesus Christ — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:32:06 +0000

By: Leroy Blevins Sr.

Leroy Blevins Sr. — Fri, 01 May 2009 20:04:56 +0000

I have debunked the Patterson and Gimlin film of Bigfoot. For at BBI we not only tell the truth WE SHOW IT. The key word we use is Show it. Yes I can show the P/G film is a hoax.

By: BadHoaxinHabit

BadHoaxinHabit — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:42:32 +0000

great article, I was just reading about this debate on the Patterson bigfoot at http:/www.pattersonfilm.com it has some unique perspectives, both pro monkeysuit, and pro bigfoot. I personally think its odd that we still cant simulate this film even close. 40 years later with the advances in costume making and technology. that is my opinion.

By: Nick of CriticalCritique.Com

Nick of CriticalCritique.Com — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 08:20:00 +0000

“Being a skeptical thinker, I am open to the idea of Bigfoot, but don’t see the proof that science demands. Show me a body. Not a picture. Not a movie. Not stories from those who claim to have seen it. Show me something that can’t possibly be a hoax. Something that can be peer-reviewed and verified by everyone, and can be put through the scientific testing necessary to qualify it as a new species. Bigfoot proponents claim Bigfoot exists. Prove it by showing objective evidence.” ~ Andy Kaiser

I concur. And IF at all Bigfoot is indeed real, then this will become another evolution proof of an ape making a transition to man that the religious creationist are asking for… LOL! ;-D

By: Rick S.

Rick S. — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:47:29 +0000

I was a skeptic too until I saw these enhancements:

I found a better enhancement of the hair on the creature:
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/patty_thorax.htm

and here this website has a pretty good clip enhancement of the face:
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/facial_profile.htm

Study this one for awhile…..it’s intriguing:
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/files/Walkingwithbigfoot.gif

By: Keith Rogan

Keith Rogan — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 22:01:02 +0000

I think I can debunk the Patterson film merely by looking at several of the frames. Try googling up frames of the Patterson film (some examples can be found here: http://www.beckjord.com/bigfoot/pgfilmframesinseries/index.html) and then examine frames 307 and 339 (most other frames will work for similar observations, but these two are good examples).
Anyway, in frame 307 you can see that the fur is entirely too uniform – any critters fur changes on different parts of the body, or on the ventral vs dorsal surfaces, etc. Look at the upper inner thigh of the left leg where you’d expect to see thinner fur of a different pattern and color (look at the nearest dog or cat for an example) and note that it’s same thickness, color and quality as on the back, for example.
In this same frame, look at the right leg and note how the skin tapers down like a pair of pants rather than tightly conforming to the underlying musculature as in every other known animal – including ourselves.

Look at frame 339 and note that the creatures butt flattens out and demonstrates clearly that there is nothing beneath the fabric on that part of the suit – the baggy butt is reminiscent of current “gangsta” fashions, and is almost laughable.

I think any person who wants to apply critical thinking can make similar observations about nearly any frame in this film. Too many people are examining obscure and almost useless trivia surrounding this film – the gait, height comparisons, etc, and missing the big clear picture. Just look at the pictures of the Patterson “creature” and then look at any living animal and note the huge differences!