Jauwater
WKR
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2016
- Messages
- 3,311
While someone is on the subject of the Patterson film, I'd like to point out a few things.It's all about the Tata's, the Tata's, nothin but the Tata's
For reals though, that feature in the video just kind of makes it. I wanna believe but...
First thing, it's never been debunked. And just like the Sierra Sound tapes, it's been put through alot of scrutiny. But just like the Sierra Sound tapes, the Patty film has been dubbed as authentic. So the whole debate there isn't any footage is incorrect. It just goes to show, all these things people keep claiming there isn't any of, there actually is, But if you've never really looked Into the subject you'll never know. The fact is nobody cares about any evidence. The just want a body. Which I'm in that same boat. I totally understand.
I can't remember if the actual footage was released in 1967, or if it was actually filmed before that. But, if that was a suit, that was the best made gorilla suit that hadn't anybody seen in the 1960's. The breasts on that "suit" raise some questions. Making just a standard gorilla suit back in the 60's probably wasn't a super easy task. So than to make a suit of a hairy biped hominid that looks mostly like a gorilla that nobody's seen before, and make it better than anything Hollywood produced at the time would be really impressive. And then you add breats to it? Why go that extra step when your just trying to hoax someone. I mean, they would have already created a suit of a mythical hominid that looked more realistic than costumes created of animals that we already knew exist. Why go that extra step for the breast? It seems highly unlikely. I mean think about that, imagine being in the 60's, and hiring a few guys to make you a gorilla suit. People knew what gorillas looked like. Have you ever seen a good gorilla suit when you were growing up watching those old time movies? No, for the most part Id say we didn't. So chances are the gorilla suit you'd receive from those gentlemen wouldn't be impressive. Now imagine you hire a few guys to make a suit of a mythical biped hominid that's never been filmed before, and they do it better than any gorilla (well known animal) suit they've seen at that time, and it goes on to match thousands of sighting descriptions given over the next 60 years. It's almost comical in my mind.
One other thing I'd like to add. As far as reporting a sighting goes, who are these people suppose to call? Nobody's going to believe them. Most news stations these days are just going to turn you away. Newspaper nobody reads. Alot of people have encounters they want to tell, but most people have no clue who to reach out to to get there story out there. Because outside of podcasts, and YouTube bigfoot information just doesn't flow. Just a county over, somebody here did a bigfoot cutout, put red glowing eyes on it, and set it back in the woods a bit. The news ran a story on it, asking the public to stop contacting animal control. That the bigfoot was a cutout, and that they had over a 100 calls to animal control about it. One interviewer was asked why they contact animal control, and she stated the called the cops first, and was told to call animal control. And I guarantee most of those people calling animal control had talked to the cops first. Point being, nobody knows who the hell to contact if they've had a sighting. Because there really isn't a clear cut spot for it. There are dozens of podcast, and youtube channels, and researchers, so the people that do want their story our there has to find one of these people to do so. So what happens is you have thousands of documented encounters spreadout through dozens of different sources, and you have to search them out to hear them.
Sent from my SM-S506DL using Tapatalk