Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 5

The BFRO gave you a Class A listing for your report, good job! Bolivar County.
If we are going to continue this discussion let’s move it to a different thread.
 
Last edited:
HB,
I'd suggest you find a vid of PGF that runs at the most likely film speed it was filmed at. I can't remember what that was, but I'm sure someone here does. That was enlightening for me.

Also if you take Roger at his word that he was making a Bigfoot movie...you gotta assume he had a costume to make that movie....right? Sooooo why didn't he produce that costume upon presentation of the film "Hey look at this silly costume I was going to use but got lucky and filmed the real thing" or something like that? The answer is obvious.

I'll assume you've considered Patterson's background, Patty's perfect boobs and feet despite a lifetime outdoors and the countless other real evidence presented that should get you to 100% confidence that Patty's a dude in a crappy suit.

There's no need to "tear" your story apart there are only a few possibilities for all Bigfoot sightings misidentification, fabrication would be the most likely.
 
Last edited:
HBSquatchMay2018 said:
Hi guys. I appreciate what y'all do here. Now, I am 50/50 on the film (which I have never been percentage-wise on the film; I have always been 60-40 or 80/20 or even 100% it being real). But to me personally, even if the film is a hoax, it does not mean there is no Sasquatch. I realize you will all say there is no Bigfoot, and that's fine. But aside from that, one thing I want to throw out there-IF the film is a hoax, does it necessarily have to be Heironimus? Supposing it is someone else in the suit, someone who let Heironimus take the fall, as it were? Could it possibly have been Gimlin in a suit, or someone else close to Patterson and Gimlin? What do you guys think? Would love some feedback on this, and thanks!
Click to expand...



Does not have to be BH. He's the most likely candidate, but it could have been someone else. Gimlin is a strong contender. I'm curious about your shifting view on the authenticity of the PGF. What factors have led you to go from around 100% etc to 50%? Something must be bothering you about it. What has prompted some doubt? The film itself? The Patty figure/costume? The story of the filming and post-filming? Something else?
 
Last edited:
captain koolaid said:
Does not have to be BH. He's the most likely candidate, but it could have been someone else. Gimlin is a strong contender. I'm curious about your shifting view on the authenticity of the PGF. What factors have led you to go from around 100% etc to 50%? Something must be bothering you about it. What has prompted some doubt? The film itself? The Patty figure/costume? The story of the filming and post-filming? Something else?
Click to expand...

I guess it was the stories not jibing. Post-filming more specifically. There are some revealing things in Michael McLeod's book Anatomy of a Beast referring to the timeline, more specifically that Patterson and Gimlin were supposed to have not arrived in Willow Creek after the filming until sometime that evening, when Al Hodgson told McLeod that they showed up in the afternoon, which throws their timeline into a complete tailspin.
 
HBSquatchMay2018 said:
I guess it was the stories not jibing. Post-filming more specifically. There are some revealing things in Michael McLeod's book Anatomy of a Beast referring to the timeline, more specifically that Patterson and Gimlin were supposed to have not arrived in Willow Creek after the filming until sometime that evening, when Al Hodgson told McLeod that they showed up in the afternoon, which throws their timeline into a complete tailspin.
Click to expand...


Ah... the timeline. Dodgy as hell. The whole affair is full of contradictions and dubious aspects. One does not have to see an obvious man in a suit to conclude a hoax. The story does not add up. Their actions, if it were authentic, do not make sense. They're making things up and not behaving like they had filmed a real bigfoot. Why? If they had done what they say they did, why the need for fabrications/lies? Why act like it is a hoax if you had just nailed footage of monumental importance? Their stories and actions (particularly afterwards) do not speak of a real event. They spell hoax.
 
Last edited:
The went back to camp, retrieved the plaster, cast the tracks, and also followed the beast that 'walked just like you and me', for two miles, one way into the woods.
 
Drewbot said:
The went back to camp, retrieved the plaster, cast the tracks, and also followed the beast that 'walked just like you and me', for two miles, one way into the woods.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was a little under two miles to get to the truck for the plaster.

Then they followed Patty for 3-3.5 miles, or not far, depending on which version you read. Roger says it was 3 miles.

They still made it to the airport in time.

Bob Gimlin took the movie camera and went off to film tracks and try to find another bigfoot, while Roger got his horse and packs together. Yes, Bob Gimlin took the camera and went off to film after the horses were recovered and the camera was reloaded.

Bob pretends today that he doesn't know one end of a K-100 from the other, but Roger reloaded the camera for Bob to use.

Then it rained like hell that night, flooding the place, washing out the roads, and threatening to trap them, but somehow the tracks stayed nearly perfect, despite only being covered with bark.
 
HBSquatchMay2018 said:
My 1998 sighting, which I already know you are going to tear apart. Was driving home on Highway 61 3 miles south of Shaw, Mississippi, 1:15 A.M. spotted something walking across the highway 150 yards away.
Click to expand...

About 3 miles south of Shaw, Mississippi is here. It doesn't look to me like there's anywhere near enough wooded areas there for any hominid to live, let alone a very large one that nobody has seen.

Leaving aside your belief in what you saw, does it seem to you like there are enough woods around there for a hominid to survive?
 
LTC8K6 said:
Yeah, it was a little under two miles to get to the truck for the plaster.

Then they followed Patty for 3-3.5 miles, or not far, depending on which version you read. Roger says it was 3 miles.
Click to expand...
Do they claim that all this back and forth was on horseback or on foot?
 
The Shrike said:
Do they claim that all this back and forth was on horseback or on foot?
Click to expand...

Horseback.

Given the terrain, they couldn't have gone very fast to get the plaster. Remember, they took a short cut "over the hill" that was a little less than the 2 miles by road, they did not use the logging road to go get the plaster.

And, you don't go very fast when tracking a beastie through the woods, either.

In the 67 radio interview, Bob says they had to chase the spooked horses up and down the road for a little while before finally catching them. So that's more time lost.
 
I still laugh at Munns' colossal blunder of picking the wrong side. There's a reason Munns hasn't achieved the fame and fortune he pretends he's entitled to, decisions like that.

From what I can gather he was so offended that that nobody Roger Patterson had even dared try to outwit guys like him (costumers?) that he picked the other side solely to spite the dead man. Put another way, a debate amongst normal people about the PGF is "there's no way that's a monkey because we would surely know about it already." The debate Munns had in his head (apparently) was "there's no way that's a costume because Roger Patterson was a hack."

Proof of that is in his final conflicted conclusion about the PGF that said 'maybe there is no Bigfoot, but that's no man in a suit'. Really? So no matter the cost of one's character and credibility, Roger Patterson isn't gonna outsmart Bill Munns if Bill Munns has anything to say about it. Too bad for him he had too much to say about it and got even more than outsmarted, he got owned by a dead guy. So who was the hack? :biggrin:
 
LTC8K6 said:
Oh yeah...

But if that's what it takes, I'll just keep pointing out that Roger said his horse fell and landed on him bending a stirrup, and Bob said that Roger's horse never fell... :biggrin:
Click to expand...
And as that's contradiction's long running corollary, one can't bend a stirrup by his horse falling on him. As in it being essentially a physical impossibility. Of course in theory metal stirrups could bend, but in 1968 they weren't using metal stirrups on their western saddles, they had already bent wood (of all things) stirrups. A closer look at any of the clear video of P & G on their horses should show what stirrups they used. Those wood stirrups are basically bullet proof. A fully shod 1,500# horse could bounce up and down on just one of them with all four hooves at once and probably never affect it.

Proving your point, it's just a stupid detail RP made up that he thought gave it credibility (i.e. why would they say a stirrup bent if it didn't actually happen and who would really question it if it didn't) that he could never take back. Gimlin was right, there was no horse rearing or falling or bending going on, but their story had to have some kind of unique, definitive detail and Bob definitely wasn't hired on as creative director. :wink:
 
HarryHenderson said:
And as that's contradiction's long running corollary, one can't bend a stirrup by his horse falling on him. As in it being essentially a physical impossibility. Of course in theory metal stirrups could bend, but in 1968 they weren't using metal stirrups on their western saddles, they had already bent wood (of all things) stirrups. A closer look at any of the clear video of P & G on their horses should show what stirrups they used. Those wood stirrups are basically bullet proof. A fully shod 1,500# horse could bounce up and down on just one of them with all four hooves at once and probably never affect it.

Proving your point, it's just a stupid detail RP made up that he thought gave it credibility (i.e. why would they say a stirrup bent if it didn't actually happen and who would really question it if it didn't) that he could never take back. Gimlin was right, there was no horse rearing or falling or bending going on, but their story had to have some kind of unique, definitive detail and Bob definitely wasn't hired on as creative director. :wink:
Click to expand...


You know, I'm willing to grant Patterson some leeway in goosing up the story, even if it were real. After all, he was a bit of ******** artist and a shameless self promoter. However, taken all together, the weight of the fabrications, the fanciful narrative, the bewildering actions, the contradictions and total WTF-ery? post filming combine to overwhelm any slack one could grant to RP as a storyteller. An embellishment or two? Maybe, but I don't think so. RP would have have known what he had in the bag and he wouldn't care at that point about anything else. Why would he need to? But again... maybe. However in this case, it's not just a couple of lies. It's a massive pile of porkies. He was full of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom