Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot Video

[StewDogg11]

No, it's that he forgot how insanley high $2000 was worth back in 1967. Why the hell would two yokels pay him the modern equivelant of $7000 to wear a suit for a 10 minute production ?

You just said $6,000.

 

[drstrangelov]

Bob H claimed it was him. Here's the problem. He said back in 2001 he was paid $2000 back in 1967 to wear the suit for one hour. That's equivelant to almost $8000 in today's money. He's lying. Plus, his dimensions don't match the creature in the video.

I don’t get it, why does the 2000 number disqualify him?

He was wearing a hair suit, he could have easily padded it to give himself a different exterior shape. I put a pillow under my shirt when I dressed as Santa clause for my kids last year, it added to the effect.

 

[RentPayer]

You just said $6,000.

$2000 in 1967
$6000 in 2001
$8000 in today's money

Use the inflation calcualtor.

 

[Spounman]

There is no evidence this is a suit. On the contrary, all analysis shows this creature is in lock step with all paleo-anthropological standards. People saying 'it's a guy in a suit' don't have the evidence on their side.

That and costumes at that time looked like shit. If this were a costume it would have trumped anything Hollywood had.

The bluff creek area is pretty damn remote. I've been to Eureka and Crescent City, and apart from the coast its just massive forest land up there.

 

[RentPayer]

I don’t get it, why does the 2000 number disqualify him?

He was wearing a hair suit, he could have easily padded it to give himself a different exterior shape. I put a pillow under my shirt when I dressed as Santa clause for my kids last year, it added to the effect.

If someone told you today that two yokel's on welfare gave him $8000 to wear a suit for 1 hour to make a bigfoot hoax video, alarm bells would go off because of the money value.

 

[StewDogg11]

$2000 in 1967
$6000 in 2001
$8000 in today's money

Use the inflation calcualtor.

He only claimed he received $1,000 so you’re lying and furthermore he didn’t make that claim in 2022 so that part of your analysis is irrelevant.

 

[drstrangelov]

If someone told you today that two yokel's on welfare gave him $8000 to wear a suit for 1 hour to make a bigfoot hoax video, alarm bells would go off because of the money value.

Were they on welfare? I don’t think being a yokel makes it less plausible, a fool and his money after all.

If I learned today that some YouTube influencer wannabe laid somebody 8k to pretend to be Bigfoot for a video in an effort to drum up views I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised.

 

[blaseblah]

This is a drawing he made based on reports from locals of what they had described seeing ! He went out there looking for this creature and he captured it. Also, by instinct, both P and G referred to the creature as "he" for about 7 years. It wasn't until the mid 70s with some tech advancement that people saw it was a female.

If this was a suit, why can't any of the top Hollywood costume designers replicate it ? BBC spent $75k trying to recreate this suit and failed. The guy who did Planet of the Apes said he wasn't able to duplicate the suit.

This is not true. No one has tried to recreate the suit. The BCC intentionally used a fake looking suit since the original looks fake itself.

 

[drstrangelov]

That and costumes at that time looked like shit. If this were a costume it would have trumped anything Hollywood had.

The bluff creek area is pretty damn remote. I've been to Eureka and Crescent City, and apart from the coast its just massive forest land up there.

Costumes for movies serve a different purpose. This guy didn’t need to appear clothed, or have a face that displayed emotion, even a mouth that moved when he talked. It didn’t even need to accommodate a full range of motion. You could make a comparable costume at home, using cheap, easily sourced materials for a couple hundred dollars today if you had the time and interest

 

[IloveTHIS]

I used to get annoyed at the bigfoot crowd but now I just roll my eyes and (no disrespect intended AT ALL) feel bad for them

They point to that "super duper completely 100% totally ufakable bro" suit like religious people point to the bible as proof

 

[RentPayer]

I used to get annoyed at the bigfoot crowd but now I just roll my eyes and (no disrespect intended AT ALL) feel bad for them

They point to that "super duper completely 100% totally ufakable bro" suit like religious people point to the bible as proof

The only evidence I believe is legit is the Patterson Gimlin footage. I've studied the other ones which most Bigfoot belivers accept as legit and I have rejected them all. I'm no Bigfoot fanatic.

 

[StewDogg11]

The only evidence I believe is legit is the Patterson Gimlin footage. I've studied the other ones which most Bigfoot belivers accept as legit and I have rejected them all. I'm no Bigfoot fanatic.

But you’re a liar like you claim Bob H. is.

 

[RentPayer]

But you’re a liar like you claim Bob H. is.

When did I lie ?

* If I was incorrect in thinking it was $2000 and it was actually $1000, my point still stands.
$1000 in 1967 is worth $8,494.49 in today's money. Bob claims he was paid this much to walk in front of the screen. Patterson and Gimlin did not have that type of money, nor would they or anyone pay anyone that much just to walk in front of a screen.

 

[GtehMVP]

Actually the direct opposite bud. I want to debunk this video so bad.

Here's what Hollywood was messing around with in 1968 The two guys who shot the video, Patterson and Gimlin, probably had an IQ of 150


That's combined

I love a good conspiracy. It's so fun to let your imagination run wild. It's equally fun to try and debunk them.

It's like the moon landing conspiracy. The more you look into the facts around them, it's undeniable real footage, incredible stuff.

 

[Pittie Petey]

When did I lie ?

* If I was incorrect in thinking it was $2000 and it was actually $1000, my point still stands.
$1000 in 1967 is worth $8,494.49 in today's money. Bob claims he was paid this much to walk in front of the screen. Patterson and Gimlin did not have that type of money, nor would they or anyone pay anyone that much just to walk in front of a screen.

A minute ago you said $2,000 in 1967 was worth $8,000 today, now say $1,000 in 1967 is worth $8,494 today

Thats some wild inflation

 

[RentPayer]

A minute ago you said $2,000 in 1967 was worth $8,000 today, now say $1,000 in 1967 is worth $8,494 today

Thats some wild inflation

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

 

[Pittie Petey]

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

View attachment 914748

This doesnt change what you said a few minutes ago
The problem here aint the math, the problem is youve changed your story 3 times in the past hour
Makes you seem untrustworthy and not someone who actually knows what theyre talking about

Bob H claimed it was him. Here's the problem. He said back in 2001 he was paid $2000 back in 1967 to wear the suit for one hour. That's equivelant to almost $8000 in today's money. He's lying. Plus, his dimensions don't match the creature in the video.

No, it's that he forgot how insanley high $2000 was worth back in 1967. Why the hell would two yokels pay him the modern equivelant of $7000 to wear a suit for a 10 minute production ?

 

[RentPayer]

This doesnt change what you said a few minutes ago
The problem here aint the math, the problem is youve changed your story 3 times in the past hour
Makes you seem untrustworthy and not someone who actually knows what theyre talking about

I don't accept "gotcha" tactics in a discussion - especially when my main point still has merit, and because I was trying to organize my argument with various numbers.

 

[Pittie Petey]

I don't accept "gotcha" tactics in a discussion - especially when my main point still has merit, and because I was trying to organize my argument with various numbers.

This isnt "gotcha", these are your direct quotes and each one of them states a different amount
People arent gonna believe anything you say if you cant even keep your story straight 3 posts in a row
Maybe settle down and make sure you know what youre talking about before you rush in trying to argue and you wont make yourself look so ridiculous

 

[SuperHoss]

A minute ago you said $2,000 in 1967 was worth $8,000 today, now say $1,000 in 1967 is worth $8,494 today

Thats some wild inflation

LoL, pathetic argument. $8000 was a ballpark figure. $8000 or $8494 present value, is a ridiculous amount for these two men to pay this clown. His story, like your argument has no merit.