Yowiehunters Forum

Having read most of Sasquatch: Legend meets Science by Jeff Meldrum, in my opinion there is simply too much scientifically observable, and within reason, quantifiable evidence/data from the images of the film to suggest that the creature is anything but real. And, on the flip side, not enough to suggest the film was faked.

I also found this little snippet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FhPbSbG ... ure=rec-r2

If you haven't either seen the documentary or read the book Sasquatch: Legend meets Science, I fully recommend it!
The scientific community that have observed and studied all the evidence offer some very compelling and convincing conclusions.

Bill Munns has some interesting takes on patty, and he comes from a Hollywood costume backround and the like. I can copy paste alot of his thoughts if anyone here wants to read through it ?

As for LMS its a good DVD, a little dated now days on some points though, I really hope a LMS2 gets made as has been rumored

Patty in itself is a mute point for me these days

There is some good discussion going on over at the GCBRO Forum on this very topic http://www.network54.com/Forum/23217/

Here is the link to the Patterson-Gimlin talk http://www.network54.com/Forum/23217/me ... erson+film...

They are saying that there were more people involved than just Patterson and Gimlin and that patty’s bulge on her right leg is not a hernia as first thought but a gun shot wound. If you have been following this story on GCBRO you will know there is a lot more to this story than meets the eye.

I have seen some of Bill Munns' work on the 'suit analysis' and it is very interesting. What bugs me is that the suit or hoax supporters tend to focus almost entirely on 'Patty's' appearance and the alleged 'man in the suit' scenario. They tend to ignore or overlook all of the other evidence that is also there, for example the deep footprints and the subsequent trail into and up the mountain side from the creek bed, and of course the way that Patty moves, in particular the fluid yet compliant gait she has when walking away.

Things that I feel support the 'real creature' idea:

If this was a hoax and it was an actor in a suit, it would have been like any movie take and actors almost never get 'it' right the first time. What are the chances that this 'actor' has been able to pull off this sequence - perfectly - without ANY glitches, trips, stumbles, mistakes in posture, or just plain bloopers (common in the acting world)? It just seems to good and too natural to be 'acted'.

The gait that Patty has when walking is with bent knees and is compliant of a heavy weight bearing on the subject. We, as Humans, lock our knees when we walk, and to be able to simulate or act out this gait so smoothly again just seems so improbable for a man in a what would have been a somewhat constrictive suit to say the least.

The 'head turn' (look back) is done with the whole torso turned in the same direction, instead of just a simple turn of the head which you would expect of a man with a neck. This particular movement is interesting because it is indicative of large primates such as Gorillas who also have to turn their torsos to look behind them. The fact that Sasquatch/Bigfoot doesn't appear to have a true neck (and neither does 'Patty') would tend to make one lean toward thinking that this creature has definite primate-like anatomical features. At least in the upper body.

The footprints left behind in and near the creek bed were up to an inch deep, and 1.25 inches in some cases. Again, these are indicative of a very heavy subject, something in excess of 500lbs! How could these prints have been faked so convincingly if they had to pressed into the ground with artificial weight?
It should be noted that a 200lb human on the same ground could only leave prints one quarter the depth of those left behind by Patty.

I am yet to be convinced that the Patterson-Gimlin film is a fake.