- Joined
- Oct 29, 2002
- Messages
- 36,523
- Location
- East of Suez
Sadly, Googling "hot bigfoot action" would probably bring something up these days.
NSFW:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=cum+for+bigfoot&ref=nb_sb_noss
Sadly, Googling "hot bigfoot action" would probably bring something up these days.
Ooooggg! It exists! Okay, "hot Nessie action"? Please nooo...
Ooooggg! It exists! Okay, "hot Nessie action"? Please nooo...
View attachment 18768
Lucy is at it again! This time traveling to scenic Scotland to find the Mythological Loch Ness Monster!In her previous adventures with the other Fantasy, Monsters Lucy experienced things she'd never dreamed of, now she wants more. While Bigfoot and the Yeti were both fulfilling in their own special way, Lucy was always left hungry for more. Now she's hot on the trail of the Loch Ness Monster. Is he a shifter? Or a prehistoric dinosaur? Something else? No one knows but Lucy is determined to find out.
... That such a carefully crafted suit — a sizeable investment — was only used to make one hoax film. ...
- Any and all mention of the documentary film project already underway needed to be swept under the carpet, and most importantly ...
- Any suit / costume obtained for that project was now debunking evidence that had to disappear.
... We can only speculate.
I'm sticking rigidly to my "I still don't know for sure" stance .
I've not seen this before. All I've seen is the section of it walking off, looking over its shoulder and then disappearing into the trees.
Yes. There were no meddling kids nearby.So have we totally ruled out a 3D projection run by the school caretaker who’s trying to scare the locals away from the local mine?
.
Regardless of how occupied DeAtley was over the next circa 36 hours in getting any film developed, he was definitely busy notifying known Bigfoot aficionados (Green, Dahinden, and McClarin) and inviting them to see some film. This viewing happened on Sunday - without Gimlin, and only after DeAtley and Patterson had privately reviewed the film being screened and engaged in a long private conversation. Gimlin's absence (exclusion?) ensured Patterson would be the only witness the assembled audience could interrogate.
Just for the record ... I'm actually still agnostic about the possible existence of relict hominids, etc. It's the thin circumstantial evidence base, shaky reasoning, and self-serving promoters I've always targeted, not necessarily the creature per se.
IIRC, Gimlin had to go back to work and that was why he wasn't there and had very little to do with any subsequent publicity. No cover up or exclusion, he just couldn't do it. ... .
At the beginning of the film when she begins to turn toward viewer, you can clearly see the Gluteus Medius flexing; It's attached to the Iliac Crest of the larger female pelvis of the creature (It's part of the deep structure, and the surface landmarks of the iliac crest are used in figure drawing). I don't see a way that could be achieved; it would be very difficult even today. I don't think it's a suit.So there is a new stabilized version of the film just released.
To me, it adds information that can lead to misinterpretation. I don't know that you can squeeze any more info out of this footage without extending past the original data. But I don't know what the enhancements may have done.
Possibly the most interesting aspect is how two people can look at the same clip with one saying that it "totally" looks legit while the other person says it "totally" is a guy in a suit. This is what is truly amazing.
Not to be a pest...but no one commented on why the film ended...did they run out...were scared to follow...or what..?
It seems that in many of these 'paranormal videos' they end far too soon.
Thanks for explaining that....I always wondered why they didn't follow the 'creature'.The Patty encounter supposedly wasn't the first footage Patterson had shot that day. Some accounts claim he'd filmed some general scene-setting footage (the forest; him and Gimlin riding their horses) prior to the encounter.
The first reel was therefore exhausted shortly after the encounter. I'm not sure whether the physical end of the roll was reached or Patterson noticed a low / final reading on the camera's footage indicator. My bet's on the former, based on comments Patterson wasn't all that skilled a camera operator.
In any case ... The other reason the film (as presented) stops as it does is because the original reels and the additional footage they contained went MIA a long time ago.
One of the standard types of film reel for 16mm was roughly 3-5 minutes of footage, and that was a standard type of reel that would go in news or cheaper hobby cameras. You'd need an external reel holder to put in more than that.Not to be a pest...but no one commented on why the film ended...did they run out...were scared to follow...or what..?
Ok..that explains the time factor..I guess. It seems to me they could have followed to get more video or whatever. But if the film ran out..so be it.One of the standard types of film reel for 16mm was roughly 3-5 minutes of footage, and that was a standard type of reel that would go in news or cheaper hobby cameras. You'd need an external reel holder to put in more than that.
To change the film out of the camera, you'd have to put the whole camera in a film-changing bag, open the body of the camera, pull out the film and put it back in a protective box, then take it out. I couldn't do a complete switcheroo any faster than about 10 minutes, because you'd have to do the same thing to load the film, including threading the @#$%! thing by feel - though I think that it can be done faster with practice, but not a ton faster. If I had just seen Bigfoot, it would be hard to get back set up with a new reel in any time.
Now, if they has an external mount holding more film ready to go, you can get the used one off and the fresh one on in a minute or two.
My bet's on the former, based on comments Patterson wasn't all that skilled a camera operator.
The project wasn't going well, owing to insufficient funding and a surprising lack of diligence in doing the requisite planning, coordination, and filming.
Thanks for explaining that....I always wondered why they didn't follow the 'creature'.
I guess that makes some sense....but why did they go that area...did someone see a bigfoot there before...so they went in hopes of seeing one...or were they just out having a ride..? The fact that he was into Bigfoot and conveniently saw one..is suspicious to some degree.They did set out to follow Patty once Patterson reloaded the camera and they got their horses settled.
Both P and G claimed they tracked Patty for some distance, but their accounts were vague or conflicting regarding how far they tracked the creature, whether there'd been additional visual contact, if and where they lost its trail versus simply giving up, and why they broke off the pursuit.
I guess that makes some sense....but why did they go that area...did someone see a bigfoot there before...so they went in hopes of seeing one...or were they just out having a ride..? The fact that he was into Bigfoot and conveniently saw one..is suspicious to some degree.
Thanks for the info........,For decades?, that would mean the late 40's and 50's...into the 60's..I never even heard of Bigfoot until some years after the Patterson film.Bigfoot sightings and tracks had been reported for decades in remote areas located from northernmost California to British Columbia.
This (Willow Creek; Orleans) area was one of the locales for prior such reports.
More specifically ... There'd been a report of tracks found in the Bluff Creek area in August 1967 (roughly 2 months before the Patty incident).
Gimlin has repeatedly stated that Patterson bugged him to undertake an expedition there based on the August reports.
Thanks for the info........,For decades?, that would mean the late 40's and 50's...into the 60's..I never even heard of Bigfoot until some years after the Patterson film.
So who and where were people reporting 'Bigfoot' to back then..?
No offense intended, but ... At this point I have to recommend you do some background research on the Bigfoot / Sasquatch phenomenon. Stories of a humanoid creature go back to pre-20th century folklore, and sensational encounter stories from the Pacific Northwest date back at least as far as the 1920's.
Unless you followed or read about cryptozoological stories prior to the P&G film you might have simply missed mention of it. Until the P&G film popularized Bigfoot nationally and even internationally it was effectively a regional (Pacific Northwest) bit of lore.