tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8996974684243527907.post465893676591107938..comments2023-10-23T00:23:28.842-07:00Comments on BIGFOOT'S bLOG: Rare Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot Film Screen Captures, the BBC X-Creatures Documentary, and THE LEAP OF SKEPTICISMSteven Streuferthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07852437322070677310noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8996974684243527907.post-9158410974903043982016-12-04T16:57:26.946-08:002016-12-04T16:57:26.946-08:00These days he's publishing books on Amazon'...These days he's publishing books on Amazon's CreateSpace. You can order them, and then have a permanent record of his theories at a given date.Steven Streuferthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07852437322070677310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8996974684243527907.post-86128794910410301392016-12-04T16:56:17.960-08:002016-12-04T16:56:17.960-08:00Unfortunately, Leroy has constantly deleted and re...Unfortunately, Leroy has constantly deleted and rebuilt his web pages and YouTube accounts, such that it's next to impossible to establish an historical record of the development of his theories. Some of us remember, however. I've seen his stuff since like 2008. Whenever he gets proven wrong, or hits a dead end, the videos and posts or pages disappear, and then he emerges later with a revised and updated version even more bizarrely displaced from reality than the earlier ones were.Steven Streuferthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07852437322070677310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8996974684243527907.post-91653119493013194882016-12-04T16:53:05.371-08:002016-12-04T16:53:05.371-08:00That's right. The YouTube video is a hoax. The...That's right. The YouTube video is a hoax. The chimp was domesticated, and his name was Oliver. He hardly looked like a human ("humanzee"), either, but he was an odd-looking chimpanzee. Here he is:<br />https://youtu.be/hOlG5t2z3wISteven Streuferthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07852437322070677310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8996974684243527907.post-51714367777276657912016-12-04T16:48:38.217-08:002016-12-04T16:48:38.217-08:00I find the argument that goes "The PGF is fak...I find the argument that goes "The PGF is fake because Bigfoot is not real" insufficient. It's fallacious and falls short, however true it is that there is also insufficient evidence to prove that Bigfoot is real. IF the film is of a real creature, then that argument is defeated. So, it just begs the question. Unfortunately, the PGF has not been proven to be either false or real, but sits right there in the middle in its ambiguity, generating all the more debate and fascination.Steven Streuferthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07852437322070677310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8996974684243527907.post-43316961918287266872016-12-04T16:45:07.207-08:002016-12-04T16:45:07.207-08:00She's talking about up in Washington. I've...She's talking about up in Washington. I've seen the documentary she is referring to, I think, but I can't recall which one it was.Steven Streuferthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07852437322070677310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8996974684243527907.post-40204401532384688052016-12-04T15:30:52.204-08:002016-12-04T15:30:52.204-08:00Did it have something to do with "Boggy Creek...Did it have something to do with "Boggy Creek" in the title?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07454351228117831062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8996974684243527907.post-48805646655235745182016-12-04T15:29:08.041-08:002016-12-04T15:29:08.041-08:00Anonymous, how did you intend to prove Bigfoot'...Anonymous, how did you intend to prove Bigfoot's existence? I'm curious.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07454351228117831062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8996974684243527907.post-49681760608082894002016-12-04T15:25:00.429-08:002016-12-04T15:25:00.429-08:00It is a chimp. I saw the same footage on a docume...It is a chimp. I saw the same footage on a documentary, in color, and shot showing the chimp's full body. The only thing humanlike about this chimp was his tendency to prefer to walk upright most of the time, something that chimps can do, but as a rule do not.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07454351228117831062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8996974684243527907.post-40586881478615158412016-12-04T15:19:55.467-08:002016-12-04T15:19:55.467-08:00Again, Mr. Belvins, PAGE NOT FOUND. Every time I ...Again, Mr. Belvins, PAGE NOT FOUND. Every time I try to give you the benefit of the doubt, you pull the proof! What kind of game are you playing at here?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07454351228117831062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8996974684243527907.post-57726922807930852902016-12-04T15:16:28.844-08:002016-12-04T15:16:28.844-08:00I checked into your website, Mr. Belvins, and I am...I checked into your website, Mr. Belvins, and I am sad to say that your proof does not exist, if it ever did at all. The link you posted goes to a page that says "Sorry, page not found." Is there any other place that one might find your proof? Also, I doubt that you have the technical skill to reproduce a costume that could not be created at the time of the P/G footage as nothing like that even existed at the time, except in rumors. You have no clear proof, I'm afraid. If you are, in fact, telling the truth, then I ask you, sir TO SHOW IT!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07454351228117831062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8996974684243527907.post-54985439975156130512015-08-10T17:15:57.239-07:002015-08-10T17:15:57.239-07:00That isn't quite enough information to ring th...That isn't quite enough information to ring the bell. Do you recall anything else about it? I may have a copy of it somewhere to check.Steven Streuferthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07852437322070677310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8996974684243527907.post-33098052620114019112015-08-10T16:04:31.168-07:002015-08-10T16:04:31.168-07:00In the early 70's there was a documentary made...In the early 70's there was a documentary made using this video and many interveiws from the Skamania County. Columbia River Gorge. I am looking for the video. HELPMary Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04239889854190129053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8996974684243527907.post-44088402759641250002015-07-26T13:02:36.297-07:002015-07-26T13:02:36.297-07:00Blevin's SR. is a nut! He is the kook who says...Blevin's SR. is a nut! He is the kook who says Secret Service Agent William Greer shot a gun over his shoulder and blew the top of President Kennedy's head off. The chrome plated gun he claims to see is the sun shining off of Agent Kellerman's hair. If poor image interpretation skills was a crime - Blevin's would have been given the death penalty long ago!<br /><br />BillAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8996974684243527907.post-42108741176916820572015-04-26T14:44:31.203-07:002015-04-26T14:44:31.203-07:00Wow, you've gotta be kidding, but anyway.........Wow, you've gotta be kidding, but anyway...........Steven Streuferthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07852437322070677310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8996974684243527907.post-50434661880393128902015-04-25T14:24:03.249-07:002015-04-25T14:24:03.249-07:00If you really want to know what Bigfoot is, then r...If you really want to know what Bigfoot is, then read this story.<br />http://thesop.org/story/letters/2009/07/30/the-real-story-about-the-bible-and-evolution.phpAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8996974684243527907.post-28399989934631117682012-07-18T01:27:17.010-07:002012-07-18T01:27:17.010-07:00"What I can do is offer reasons why I BELIEVE..."What I can do is offer reasons why I BELIEVE it is a fake, and you can offer reasons why you think it is real."<br /><br />The difference being, of course, that the reasons offered for why it's fake have no bearing on the film. They are character assassination, which honestly are true—but not relevant. The reasons many believe it's real have to do with analyses of the film itself—motion studies, image stabilizations, etc. The astronomer who discovered Neptune may have been a creep. That's no bearing on whether or not Neptune really exists.<br /><br />Understand the difference? No, I didn't think so.Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8996974684243527907.post-47621853844660262412012-07-18T01:24:17.016-07:002012-07-18T01:24:17.016-07:00Isaac Newton believed in Alchemy and the supernatu...Isaac Newton believed in Alchemy and the supernatural. In those regards he was way off base, maybe even a kook, but I'm not going to disbelieve his Laws of Motion because of it. People with odd or questionable character can still be right or make a discovery or breakthrough. It's interesting that you don't cite one relevant fact in your post. You just go on about the man. Oh, and you mention something about Belvins seems to show Gimlin in the bushes as well...I'm not even sure what that means. Could you clarify? That's my problem with the debunkers: their statements are filled with innuendo and vague personal attacks that have nothing to do with science—the very thing they hold against the believers. If you'd like to present an analysis of the FILM and discuss body motion, muscle mass, anatomy, facial features, etc., then I'll listen. A number of researchers have done this, and most seem to come away if not saying the film is genuine, it at least can't be dismissed or debunked either. The debunkers, meanwhile, hide behind statements like "Patterson is obviously a con man" (true; in fact he conned Gimlin out of his rights to the film, to G's bitterness, but G, while not being pleased with his colleague's behavior, has still maintained he believes the film is not of a man in a suit; he is able to separate his feelings for Patterson from his feelings about what he witnessed that day) or "The film is so fake anyone can see it's a man in a suit." If *anyone* can see it then it should be easy to debunk. Very high-quality images now exist thanks to computer restoration and image stabilization. You have the floor. Debunk the FILM. I don't care about the man. Ad hominem attacks are for people who don't have an argument based on the facts.Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8996974684243527907.post-82809482424855134992012-07-18T01:14:12.382-07:002012-07-18T01:14:12.382-07:00"1 Bigfoot was seen by two men and ever ran a..."1 Bigfoot was seen by two men and ever ran after it why would this same Bigfoot come back to a location days after when it knows that other people will be there for Patterson and Gimlin was there."<br /><br />Interesting, because others have cited as proof of the film's being a hoax the "fact" that Patterson never returned to the location after making the film (which, by the way, he actually did).<br /><br />Seems like no matter what P&G did, the debunkers smell a rat. I'm not 100 percent convinced, but the hoaxers who say it's "obvious" this is a fake given themselves quite a burden: if it's so obvious it's a fake, and easy to do, why don't they do it and post the side-by-side comparison on someplace like YouTube. Then they'd go down in history as the famous debunkers of the great Roger Patterson.<br /><br />James Randi cites as proof psychic phenomena don't exist the fact that he's laid aside a million dollar cheque (courtesy of the MacArthur Foundation) for anyone who can demonstrate some sort of psychic phenomenon under controlled conditions that he can't debunk, and no one has ever taken him up on it. Well, the P&G film presents the opportunity in reverse: here's an opportunity for deniers to prove the believers wrong, if it's so easy to fake it with a suit. So where are the takers? If any idiot could make a fake this bad, why don't people go out there and do it and gain publicity for the skeptic side and maybe make some bucks off their debunking as well?Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8996974684243527907.post-44700706207989149352012-07-18T01:06:22.758-07:002012-07-18T01:06:22.758-07:00His web sites keep disappearing too. If he had all...His web sites keep disappearing too. If he had all this "proof" there'd be a lot more interest in it.Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8996974684243527907.post-3822354590839005022011-06-30T17:10:44.168-07:002011-06-30T17:10:44.168-07:00I cannot prove it is a fake, just as you cannot pr...I cannot prove it is a fake, just as you cannot prove it is real. What I can do is offer reasons why I BELIEVE it is a fake, and you can offer reasons why you think it is real. Fact = no real tangible PROOF that Bigfoot exists. I believe it does, but that is only a belief. Eventually, I am going to head out into the field to research this as I believe I know a way to find this thing if it does truly exist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8996974684243527907.post-36602777212803246502011-06-29T20:22:16.386-07:002011-06-29T20:22:16.386-07:00Anonymous, surely you can see that you cannot debu...Anonymous, surely you can see that you cannot debunk a film from 1967 based upon the purported character of the filming agent. It's been said before: even the most screwed up individual could still make an authentic film. What Blevins says about Gimlin in the bushes is clearly absurd and an obvious example of pareidolia. The mere fact of the distance from the creature/subject to the trees in the background would make the "Gimlin" a true giant of about 10 feet tall. Ridiculous. The fact that Patterson drew a picture of a female Bigfoot based upon the William Roe sighting and others means NOTHING... his sighting/filming of a female Bigfoot could simply mean that yes, indeed, the species has females in it. If you want to prove that the PGF is fake you have a LONG, LONG way to go... and I don't mean the Greg Long way, man.Steven Streuferthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07852437322070677310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8996974684243527907.post-65528125675829046812011-06-26T23:00:07.119-07:002011-06-26T23:00:07.119-07:00I used to be a believer in The Patterson film. No ...I used to be a believer in The Patterson film. No longer, after I checked into Patterson's background, the fact he illustrated a female BF years prior in one of his short books. Blevins seems to show Gimlin in the bushes as well. People with a bias either way can see a seem in a suite, or muscles moving, etc. Films can be faked. I look at Patterson's character, and under scrutiny, it does not hold up, and in almost any court of law, his character issues would disqualify him as a credible witness. I believe BF exists, and I also believe if I had the resources, I think I know how to find them, or better said. have them FIND ME. And if I did, I would take the real evidence to a credible scientific source, and not care about fame or money. It appears Patterson wanted to always make the "big score" I believe when people take away their bias as I did, they will come to the most logical conclusion on this film, which I believe is a hoax. thanks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8996974684243527907.post-20175915424502294862011-02-15T11:17:18.187-08:002011-02-15T11:17:18.187-08:00Mikey D is right!!! You have to look at all possib...Mikey D is right!!! You have to look at all possibilities as far-fetched as they may sound. The subject of Bigfoot is in the "far-fetched" category. Mr. Blevins's research and opinion are part of this subject. I wish I had the time and commitment to research the subject but I don't. I am just glad there are persons out there that do research on the subject because it keeps the subject fresh in our minds. I will read anything on the subject of Bigfoot, good or bad, because it interests me. Keep up the good work guys and keep the info coming.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8996974684243527907.post-74237011321810843842010-09-01T11:53:20.350-07:002010-09-01T11:53:20.350-07:00In my opinion, Leroy Blevins is an undeducated man...In my opinion, Leroy Blevins is an undeducated man looking for attention. He boasts about having the "best" bigfoot research ever done. Yet, he can't construct a simple sentence. His tag-line is "we show it"....yes, you "show it" alright...you show how stupid and lame you are. Blevins "research" and "conclusions" suck much ass.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8996974684243527907.post-78525118455316561172010-07-20T14:41:30.946-07:002010-07-20T14:41:30.946-07:00This is a good blog. I also greatly appreciate Mr ...This is a good blog. I also greatly appreciate Mr Blevins and the time he took to investigate and research these different points he makes. It was a very interesting read. Some parts did make me smile though I have to admit. I mean there is a close up of a monstrous ape leg with strained and bulging muscles and the arrow is pointing underneath labelling where 'some fur has come out'! Classic. What about the giant leg muscles?? And check out the pendulous breasts, the nipples, it all looks just too real to be a hoax. Interesting work though, we need both sides of the debate to fully conclude.Mikey Dhttp://www.bigfootblog.co.uknoreply@blogger.com