Patty

I think the perfect piece of footage to start with on this blog is Harry and the Henderson's, as I'm pretty sure that is where my affinity for bigfoot started. But I won't start there because we are all adults. I'll save Harry for another day. Today we're gonna look at what is probably the most controversial, most intriguing piece of evidence to date and it is over 40 yrs old. Seems strange that in this day and age given the technological advances we've had that this is still the best we have. I'm not at all surprised. Whatever intelligence humans possessed 40 yrs ago has decreased significantly since. Regardless of where we stand techonologically you have to step back and think about who we're putting in charge of these oh so smart devices. The device is only as smart as the person handling it.

Anyway, today's piece is the Patterson/Gimlin film shot October 20, 1967 in the Bluff Creek area of Northern California. I'm not sure about the rest of you but I've watched this clip numerous times and I'm not convinced it can't be real. << (I hate when people word sentences in such a way that after reading it four times you're still not sure what it said).

http://youtu.be/uZi_gtqMvmg

I like the film. I'm sure we've all heard that there was a friend who claimed to have worn the suit, that Universal Studios said that they could try but don't believe they could recreate such a real suit or even train an actor to walk that way, that if it were a suit we wouldn't be able to notice the quadricep so well. More recently a slight bulge has been noted on the creatures right upper thigh, thought to be a possible hernia or dislocation. The bottom of the feet were white, the way that the foot flexes and appears to separate at a point where not only human feet don't, but a monkey suit never would. The broken down study of the stride, all the way down to observing the fact that certain joints seem to unhinge and produce a very unhuman like stride. Oh, and SHE has boobies. I applaud all of the researchers, scientists, skeptics and nobodies (me) who have spent countless hrs. examining this evidence.

According to Robert Gimlin they were on horseback and that explains the camera's shaky angle to begin with. I'm sure Patterson's own nervousness, anxiety or pure terror could have also aided in the shakiness. (Don't be too harsh, I've seen plenty of shaky, blurry, half assed recordings since and remember, we're way more advanced today). Also according to Robert Gimlin is that at the time she produced the famous money shot he was across the creek bed on horse back perhaps closing in a little too quickly.

I personally feel as though she was keeping her composure neutral, watching her back and getting as much space between her and them as possible. She wanted nothing to do with them and from what I hear that seems to be the trend.