วีดีโอ

Sorry, but I only know how to do what you see in the video

Pretty good. His brother in law was the one funding it. Check out his book. He was drawing pictures of " patty" a year before he seen her!!

Meldrum also claimed the Snow Walker footage was the real thing too, because of the anatomy. Turns out he was wrong, it was a man in suit made for the Paranormal Borderline tv series. The Patterson film is fake too.

I had an email correspondence with Mr Meldrum. Very disappointing! He actually git ignorant when he couldnt answer my question!

Someone doesn’t need to be an expert to know BS when they see it. I saw it when I was 10 and was very disappointed because I knew it was a guy in a suit.

@@roodsthedoods Thanks for letting me know the video helped you! Happy drawing!

Then Barney the dinosaur is real because of inhuman body proportions.

@@eminboztepe maybe he is, i dont know about that

Imagine that! A member of the bigfoot community says it's real! Shocker! There are also videos saying think thu ker is wrong

@@user-ze6er6dx9x ok, dont believe me, watch his videos about it. And be honest to yourself.

@@marcosarnabal4395 Thinker Thunker is the same clown who said that the video of two hunters dragging off a deer carcass is actually two bigfoots. He's a bigfoot believing moron.

The lore of the Patterson track is rather impressive, but we have no way of knowing how accurate/honest that information is. Now perhaps I'm just being stubborn, but I've never seen or read very much about the investigation of the site. I guess Patterson casted 1 or 2 prints within a day or two and Rob Titmus made 10 casts approximately two weeks later. Do you know where these casts are now?

​@@VirtualSGI believe meldrum has all the pg film casts.

That's odd. Sorry my video didn't help.

Big foot has nothing to do with evolution. It's just another animal.evolution never happened. It's still a lousy theory.

Bf would represent a powerful positive case for evolution, especially if it's a known human relative.

The two men and horses is what bigfoot is looking at - not the camera.

@@paulsawczyc5019 Thank You.

@@ratter531 It has also been said that the bigfoot had a facial expression of deep emotion or trauma - some people say that other bigfoots were shot.

@@paulsawczyc5019 Have you ever seen a big foot?

@@ratter531 No - I have never gone to those areas. I also have never seen a ufo - but I have seen a ghost in my house, he looked like the previous owner. I think that millions of people have seen ghosts.

'No guy is wearing a female suit'? 😂 Fool.

​@@stephengallagher2209why wouldn't a male one be used? Or sexless for that matter?

I noticed that the arms are not really so muscular - like a female.

Some so-called scientists claimed that since no human female has hair on breasts, and no apes do either, it is a faked film. If these apes exist, and I KNOW they do, they obviously are apes NEW to science, new to mankind, though they resemble Giant apes that once existed in China, but now are thought to be extinct, why can't such unknown animals have hair in places known animals have none? So much for open minded "scientists."

Patty is still a heavily built female.

Actually, M.K. merely pointed out that most of the footage does NOT show the "diaper/boot" anomaly - which is kind of my point. The question is: What could cause this anomaly to show up at all? And the answer is... up to you to decide.

Well, I'm not doing it on purpose (I don't think). I'm glad you enjoyed the whole thing!

@@VirtualSG I didn't think you were. I assume you grew up with mind control programming.

@@johnwayne2834 😎

IMO that's what it looks like - by that I mean I agree with you. It doesn't look like a guy shimmying around in a bulky costume.

@@VirtualSG but even if thats what it is, you'd think it wouldve been proven by now. The fact that the original suit has supposedly been lost since is a bit convenient. Just because it looks like a man dressed in an ape-type suit doesn't necessarily mean that that's what it is; a real sasquatch would look like such a fabrication.

1. There are gobs of folks out there who are convinced that it has been proven a hoax. 2. I personally don't think this alleged suit was some kind of masterpiece. More likely a very ingenious get-up and likely rather flimsy - not to mention the concept of "burning the evidence" when it comes to genuine hoaxers. 3. Regarding your last statement, I cannot argue with that logic. Of course, it doesn't look quite like a normal person to most of us. After many many years, I've come to the opposite conclusion: I think it could be a sasquatch, but I'm inclined to consider it a hoax. I suspect there will never be a consensus and everybody can have it their own way.

@@VirtualSG if a man can be convicted of a crime in a court of law with less evidence (witnesses) them this sure as heck IS enough proof that she's real. I believe you are trolling, somewhat because it would be impossible to recreate this film. The arms open are too long and the hands open and close and that is just one of the many things that cannot be faked.

@@junkfinder3168 I'm not trolling. I simply don't know if the P-film is genuine or hoax.

Or maybe I simply find the P-film interesting and I made a video about it. It's cool that I've gotten so many comments though!

upon rewatching it, I thought it was rather vague - but I'm glad you got something out of it!

Ha Ha - but Craig did not work on this. I also knew Craig back in those days and he showed me the same drawings - and I made this years later.

I go with what my eyes tell me - when something is fake, you immediately know it's fake - that's why fake videos are always dark or blurry.

The most fascinating thing about the P-film is that it LOOKS great IMO. LC is on some kind of crusade and (correct me if I missed something) seems unwilling to consider the film anything but obviously a hoax. Perhaps he's correct. Maybe those of us who would even consider it authentic are just gullible idiots!

@@VirtualSG well time has demonstrated it is more likely to be a hoax. The head piece is the nail in the coffin. It absolutely is the head piece from Star Trek’s Galileo 7 episode. Taurus the gargantuan is wearing the same piece. They just added hair to the face but didn’t cover the brown mole looking spot on the right upper cheek seen on Patty as well.

​@@Slazbobit's not star trek. It's been shown by Bill munns a human head can't fit into it. No guy is wearing a female suit. It's stupid as hell.

@@robertcoggeshall3071 yep, definitely Star Trek mask.

​@@Slazbobno suit from that era is that good.

Well, you got me there.

You are 100% wrong. No guy is wearing a female suit, and Roger couldn't afford one.

@@robertcoggeshall3071 sorry, Robert…that’s the reality. Just a costume.

​@@Slazbobfunny how every analysis by scientists shoots that down.

@@robertcoggeshall3071 it’s funny that it doesn’t. They won’t even talk about the mask I’m referring to because it’s party over for Patty. Need to keep it going for the dreamers.

It always has. Nobody has come close to showing its a suit. Suit theory fails.

IMO the leg/buttocks thing is the only clear give away. All the other costume evidence is as blurry and subject to interpretation as the evidence for musculature and anatomy. However, I also think that the figure looks huge and kind of weird. I want it to be a real sasquatch! The point of this video was to suggest that the reasons this might be genuine outnumber/outrank the reasons it must be a hoax - but many bigfoot fans heard a little skepticism in the message and they don't much care for that.

That's not the case. I used to think it had to be fake, but the evidence and knowledge of suits made at the time convinces me it's no suit.

Thanks for the letting me know about MK's response. I left a comment on his video. By the way, I'm curious. Why do you use language that suggests MK and I are engaged in a wrestling exhibition? Haw! The funny people!

@@VirtualSG Because you are! MK Davis is the most honest big Foot person in the world and you were calling him a liar! Know your subject before you criticize

@@richardbaumeister466 At the risk of engaging a pointless debate, I implore you to give an example of me "calling MK Davis a liar".

@@VirtualSG To make your assertion that Patty was a hoax first, you did not look at his evidence, you just made your own decision that the film was a hoax without obviously checking his evidence and he has much online to see. Each and every point you made was refuted by his evidence and had been stated by others over the years. YOU USED HIS PHOTOGRAPHY EDITING and knew his opinion. Patty is a real Sasquatch like it or not

@@richardbaumeister466 I appreciate your personal conviction that the Patterson Film is genuine, but I used MK's stabilization because it's the ultimate version of the film. I did not mention MK or his conclusions. Only my own. I should have credited him clearly in the video, but that's not the issue at hand. I contend that briefly discussing the possibility that the Patterson Film might be a hoax does not constitute a declaration of war against anybody else's conclusions.

I got curb stomped! How fascinating! Thanks for the heads up! I commented on his video!

@@VirtualSG It would also help if you engage William Munn's arguments as to why it can't possibly be any kind of suit. In 1967, the best suit maker was a guy in France who built the suits for the opening sequence in 2001 A Space Odyssey. Even those are nothing like what is legit a female sasquatch.

@@fredbutler5358 I agree the figure appears to defy the "guy in a suit" opinion - but that doesn't mean that it's absolutely not a guy in a suit. I have no idea how Patterson and company managed to achieve such a suit - perhaps it's a genuine sasquatch after all. That's what I said in the video!

​@@VirtualSGsimple reason- there's no way somebody made a female suit for a guy to wear. It is so stupid. I know the whole " oh pattersons book had a female squatch with breasts so it must be fake" bs. He drew eyewitness stories and a couple were females. Most were males. If he had somehow made this magic suit, he would have made a male or at least neutral suit.

I respect your opinion, but it's quite interesting how so many folks interpret my personal observations as a declaration of fact. I'm not trying to be correct. How am I "100% incorrect"?

@@thedude2867 Why don't you want it to be real? Is it because it contradicts personal beliefs or is it because you were wrong initially and hate to admit that? Or are you skured?

Perhaps you replied @ the wrong person. I DO want it to be real. But I'm not sure it is. That's all.

@@VirtualSG I'd be skured as hell if I seen one of em.

Well, of course it's just a photographic anomaly in YOUR opinion. I want it to be a weird fluke of light and lens myself, but... there it is.

@@VirtualSG What the line on the leg is, is it's thumb rubbing on the hair on the leg as it swings its arm . This is 100% a real living creature. If you look seriously at all the details of the film from it's swinging breasts , to the hernia that pops in and out on the leg every time she takes a step, or the way the toes flex up as it walks, to the muscles that can clearly be seen flexing and the ripples that go up the leg from the shock wave as the foot hits the ground. If you truly look at all the facts, only a moron would call this video a hoax.

Idk, I think it's just the way the hair flows over that section. Gorillas have some pretty pronounced hair patterns too.

​@@VirtualSGit's a hernia.

Where’s this evidence of a proven hoax?

We all know about the hoax allegations, none of them offer any proof

@Kitch9842 well it starts with the fact that Gimlins story is different Iin different interviews, and different again from Pattersons! We have the 2 men that came forward and admitted to being part of the hoax, Roger's own book, William Roes documentary, and that's juatbyhe beginning really. Just need to do some research! It's all there!

@@user-ze6er6dx9x Gimlin and Patterson's stories do not differ greatly. And both of them never wavered from maintaining its real. And I don't know which two men you are referring to claiming its a hoax, I'm assuming Bob Hieronimus and Phillip Morris neither of whose stories add up. but no one has ever been proven to be there but Gimlin and Patterson. That's not proof that is hearsay. And how does Roger's own book prove it was a hoax? You can call anything proof you want it doesn't make it true.

@joshlight6892 you can ignore as much evidence as you want or you can have an honest look at it! It's up to!! And yes they DO have different stories! Gimlin in one interview said that they knew right away it was a female cuz of the mammary glands! I beleive it was the 1980 interview he said they didn't know it was a female till they watched the film! Patterson said his horse reared and fell pinning and hurting his leg! That's when he seen the camera in the saddle bag and got up and started filming!! Gimlin says he was only 6ft behind him! He said Roger just got down off his horse and moved forward to film. Now if your buddies horse reared 6ft in front of you and hurt your partners leg you would be trying to help him! Pretty hard detail to forget! Pattersons book in 66 is where he drew pictures of a female bigfoot, that look eerily the same as " patty"! He had never seen one before so the odds of that is extremely slim! Then William Roes documentary where he explains an encounter with a female bigfoot, is an exact play by play of what happend at Bluff creek! Which again is impossible! Unless they are both clairvoyant! And there is till lots more to prove this a hoax

Do some research! Proven hoax

@@user-ze6er6dx9x its never been proven a hoax. Hearsay is not proof.

​@@user-ze6er6dx9xpractically proven real. Only fools cannot see its real.

I agree with you. Some may argue that it's simply a large mask, but when he/she turns to look at the camera-man (Patterson, presumably), it certainly appears to be flesh and bone rather than bulked up/material or whatever one thinks this is supposed to be. But I still think it's possible there's enough distance between camera-man and subject to allow for all kinds of misinterpretations.

One of my high school students, and her friend, another high school student, saw one of these apes very close, as they drove by it, while it stood beside road. That girl came from a family having raised horses for years, and she competed in rodeo riding too. When I asked her if it was possible, that it was a big man in some sort of costume, she promptly said "NO MAN COULD MOVE THE WAY IT DID." THAT speaks volumes. I looked for it, in same general area, for three days, and after third day, at night, "bingo," I encountered it too. I was born and raised in Montana, hunted big game all my life, know my animals, and am 100% certain it was no known animal, it was a huge ape. I don't try to convince anybody, why should I; I don't really care what others "believe," I KNOW.

@@johnsullivan6532 That's very interesting.

@@johnsullivan6532 I know they exist too, I have had many encounters in east Texas and in the Ozarks

Yep, I have found many footprints and I also have recorded plenty of vocals that several universities said they cannot identify

actually theres no evidence of any of that and the suit can be recreated to this day... not even people who did planet of the apes could understand this, and they had the best "costumes" money could buy, and they said its not a costume... people that worked in hollywood, making monsters, said its not a costume.

Not a hoax. Sorry buddy.

@@josephgodfrey7953 total hoax, admitted by the men who did it 👍😂

@@lpdog82 the men who shot the film Gimlin and Patterson never admitted a hoax. Yes others have claimed they were in on it but have offered no proof.

Actually, all talk about a suit, worn by a man, is baloney, period. People love to lie, to make up stories, and are full of it.

And, my friend, you are correct. Some people have obviously faked footprints, did various kinds of hoaxes, saying more about their stupidity than anything else. All of that does not mean Bigfoot apes don't exist. Ignore what others say, believe what you see and hear. They are real living giant apes, as hard as that is to accept. When mankind first was encountering the gorilla, many people thought they lost their minds; there just could not be such an animal. They were WRONG!

As I said in the video, I find the film very convincing. But I'm not above admitting that I could be fooled.

And, you would be right. I don't think they exist; I KNOW they do, for I encountered one. Numerous other reasons too, why I know.

@@johnsullivan6532 Of course I have no idea what you and your students saw in the woods, but it obviously made an impression on you. I can only accept your testimony and assume it was not a common woodland creature.

No guy is wearing a female suit. It's common sense.

There is actually a video that shows a butt crack on patty, you can also see her toes flex upwards as she steps, you can clearly see the muscles flex in her leg, you can also see the shockwave go through her right thigh as she steps,

its obviously NOT a suit, because if it was it would have been debunked as one DECADES ago, but even to this to this day, 60 years later, people are still arguing about it, so no, you cant "tell its a suit" at all...

Are you a complete idiot or just half stupid😅

@@adamblackedition5529 it's a suit.. Phillip Morris made it. He's a multi millionaire and has zero reason to lie about it.

@@Newholland1982 what you are seeing is the manipulation of the original footage. All the stabilizing, remastering brightening have added things that were never there in the first place . Bob H and Phillip Morris have credibility Patterson and Gimlin do not.. there's also body language experts that say there's massive signs of deception with both of the latter's stories.. you go on believing in fairy tales though and tell Santa clause and the Easter bunny I said hi .

The enhancement was digitized from the original PG film so it wasn't taken from corrupt sources.

That dude's an absolute idiot

​@@petemcpeterson6205 You're the one clinging to a story that makes less sense than this thing being real.

?