Patty Vs. Paula: A Patterson and Freeman Film Comparison
Youtuber and bigfoot enthusiast Blayne Tyler made a video doing a head to head (or foot to foot rather) comparison between the Patterson/Gimlin film, and the Paul Freeman footage. He compares various aspects of both creatures, as well as the follow up research.
A head to head comparison of Roger Patterson's 1967 Bigfoot film PGF and Paul Freeman's 1994 Sasquatch footage PFF. In particular the two look backs. Also the different research styles of 1967 and 1994 of these two pioneer Sasquatch field researchers and more!
To watch the comparison video, click here.
so what.....next
ReplyDeleteI'm next!
ReplyDeletePaula is hotter
ReplyDeleteI was never into Patty's saggy boobies
The Freeman Footage is hoaxed BS.
ReplyDeleteif this is still the best evidence of the existence of bigfoot then ,I suggest, you find another hobby
ReplyDeleteFootprints mean nothing given they are 99% bear prints who have double stepped or contorted snow/mud
eye witness accounts describe muscle bound 8-10ft hairy monsters,neither f these 2 are muscle bound or 9ft tall
so which one is correct the eye witness ' or these 2 known hoaxer
I would suggest neither. These 2 are cleary hoaxing it! The eye witnesses have bigfoot on the brain or just wrong! All they saw were upright bears in low light /behind trees etc... and think they saw a BF! lol
This footage is not the best evidence, however denialists like you would demand it if it wasn't there; rhetorical nonsense.
ReplyDeleteIn bear prints; you still have claw marks. Bears have dual tracks; the left paw and the right paw are parallel as you track through. In the Bigfoot track way; the right and left foot tracks are in front of each other - a singular track way.
In fact, a cherry picking fallacy on the height range is pretty pathetic. Actually, reports of Sasquatch are most commonly in the 7 foot range. I suggest you do a little homework before expressing such ignorance. Are you aware of the McClarin size comparison? Well, McClarin is not only walking away in a different direction to Patty, making him look taller, but he's also 6.5... If he was walking the same route as Patty, she may have been several inches taller than him, making her around 7 foot mark. As for Freeman's Sasquatch; difficult to say.
The problem for psuedoskeptics is there are reliable sources of professional eyewitness testimony and embarrassingly for them, the legal system accounts for much of it. When you have people from walks of life like long term experienced hunters, geologists, lawyers, teachers, police officers, wildlife biologists, anthropologists, wildlife consultants, doctors, psychiatrists, business owners and forestry commissioners reporting the exact same thing from unprovoked and impartial circumstances you have an issue to deal with called professional consistency. More so when you put occasions of multiple eyewitness accounts where physical and biological evidence had been accumulated from one site. When there is steady level of reports that span cultures, then mediums, then into physical and biological evidence, then the reports by reliable professional people hold weight. The truth is that sheer frequency of professional people who are accustomed to decades worth of experience in wildlife and the wilderness account for much of the opinion and accounts to which from the basis of this field. Police officers are also trained to develop a heightened attention to detail. To suggest that these very reliable people are merely seeing upright bears is an overly cynical and typical statement to make, that's obviously either rhetorical of ignorant of the very detailed accounts that span into the tens of thousands. When bears start walking with a stride, lose the snout for a flat face, grow crazy width in their shoulders and grow hands... Then the suggestion that trained, long term experienced professionals are being mistaken will hold weight. These people who account for hunters, forestry officers, etc, who have reported full frontal, very distinct features of the anatomy that account for nothing that looks like a bears, will always point out to you that very obviously, bears are clumsy when they walk bipedally... They also don't run and jump.