The Patterson-Gimlin Footage.

[ArMaP]

Paraphrasing something from the guy that made the suit, Mr Morris.  If you are wearing large feet like clown feet, you can’t place the front of your foot down first.  You’ll fall.  You have to walk flat footed.

I was thinking that yesterday.
If a person walks in shoes that are too long then they have to lift more the feet, bending more the legs, like we see on the film.

[ArMaP]

So, the list is up to.

Confirmed Roger Patterson purchased the suit.

Morris admits to making the suit.

Bob admits to wearing the suit.

Family members saw the suit in a trunk of a car.

Those are not verifiable.

If we need a Bigfoot in the flesh to be certain of its existence then we also need physical proof of all of those, not just words.

[putnam6]

I enjoy the topic; it's a guilty pleasure since I was a kid.

Seeing it as a 6-year-old, you go WOW, seeing it as a 14-year-old  I was going it's fake

We can argue the suit back and forth.... Ive been on the fence about the suit, and can argue either way. Not trying to change anyone's mind. Just this is where Im coming from

Sometimes Im a skeptic sometimes Im not. 

Someone mentioned the thread below years ago, and it was compelling enough that I spent the 20 bucks a year just to follow along. I never do that, pay for access yet I did for Patty and the Bigfoot lore. Heres where I first heard of the book Rain Coast Sasquatch

It's an epic book of sightings and has proponents and a healthy skeptical view as well.

The thread on bigfootforums it was interesting enough and covered the topic at depth, we never approached ATS and certainly not here on DI.

https://bigfootforums.com/forum/27-patte...mlin-film/

So, where's the suit?

Why hasn't it shown up over the years?

And why hasn't it been duplicated?

After all, we have thousands of fake footprints scattered throughout North America, persons motivated enough to make footprints, hell, a replicated video would get millions of views nowadays, and yet no as compelling recreations.

[WallFlowerActive]

Those are not verifiable.

If we need a Bigfoot in the flesh to be certain of its existence then we also need physical proof of all of those, not just words.

Sorta.

Bob claims to have worn the suit.

Morris claims the suit was the one he made modified.

Morris claims he sold a suit to Patterson.

I read up more on Patterson.  Supposedly there is evidence Patterson traced Mort Kunstler‘s pulp fiction art of a female Bigfoot.  It’s strange they share the same ridiculous proportions.  

So.  It comes down can you prove they were lying.  And why?

[WallFlowerActive]

So, where's the suit?

Why hasn't it shown up over the years?

How many outfits do you own still that were in your grade school pictures?

Knowing Patterson, the suit probably ended up in a pawn shop long ago in pieces parts.  Or parted out for something else or traded off to settle unpaid debts. Fell apart with time. Or general destroyed to hide the evidence.

 That’s easily explained.

[WallFlowerActive]

After all, we have thousands of fake footprints scattered throughout North America, persons motivated enough to make footprints, hell, a replicated video would get millions of views nowadays, and yet no as compelling recreations.

Bigfoot Trackers Duped By Gorilla Suit Frozen In Icehttps://www.npr.org/2008/08/20/93784613/...zen-in-ice

One.  Other than these two knuckleheads, people are less trusting and more discerning.

Two.  As the special effects guys pointed out.  Less resolution in film and video makes the costumes more realistic.  It’s friendly to special effects.  The increasing quality of video and high resolution / definition makes creating believable special effects harder and not friendly to suit based creatures.

[Kurokage]

What do you not get videos are not evidence of a flesh and blood Bigfoot.  I can bring up videos the earth is flat and of Smurfs all day long.

It’s pretty simple.  The Bigfoot community is wrought with frauds and cons.  They make no attempt to set a governing body and police themselves.  They even squabble over who is a con or fraud among themselves.  It’s a joke.

I can accept that Bigfoot might be supernatural.  Some sort of spirit.

You are the one that keeps up that Bigfoot has to be flesh and bone like a bear?  Where most Bigfoot sightings are probably bears.

It’s really simple.  Until a flesh and bone Bigfoot is captured and provided as a specimen in a world where flesh and blood mountain lions and bears are captured and tag each year.  You only have faith.  And that faith is based on the Bigfoot community heavily inundated with proven cons and frauds.  Or campfires stories.

You're a joke. You try to rubbish comments without even watching the video posted, and then come back and try again!! You're just trolling, looking for a new bridge perhaps!! 

You can find frauds and cons every where, politics, banking, the UFO subject, paranormal. Pick a subject and I'm sure there's a con man rubbing his or her hands somewhere.
If you think Bigfoot is a ghost or spirit, show me a spirit then, see I can be silly too.

How many times can I type, I'm on the fence. Is it not sinking in or something?? I've just enjoyed reading the anecdotal evidence over the years, the hundreds of sightings, and can't dismiss it out of hand.

[Kurokage]

One.  Other than these two knuckleheads, people are less trusting and more discerning.

Two.  As the special effects guys pointed out.  Less resolution in film and video makes the costumes more realistic.  It’s friendly to special effects.  The increasing quality of video and high resolution / definition makes creating believable special effects harder and not friendly to suit based creatures.

How about trying to take into account that the remastering of the footage more recently, still hasn't been able to dismiss it straight out?

[WallFlowerActive]

You're a joke.

I just created a new thread in the chat forum on what is evidence in the natural world.  That would be better discussed in that thread.

The long jest.  A video is just a campfire story unless it can be validated only after a physical flesh and bone specimen is provided.  An actual specimen is physical evidence.  Video is someone’s view using technology.  Without having a flesh and bone specimen to validate the video / film it’s a campfire story with little or no context.

[Kurokage]

I just created a new thread in the chat forum on what is evidence in the natural world.  That would be better discussed in that thread.

Maybe you should've taken your own advice 10 pages back when you got so hung up on Dr Meldrum???