• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bigfoot: The Patterson Gimlin Film - Part 5

comncents said:
I've seen even the most illustrious PGF skeptics fall into this fallacy.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how much is getting sucked-into-the-lore fallacy versus an unstated "if-what-you-claim-is-true, then..." rhetoric.

I used the latter a lot at the ol' BFF. I spent years there trying to better understand why folks might believe such obvious piffle; often giving them the benefit of the doubt and seeing if they could then join me in taking the next step, i.e., "so that means..." It was verboten there to suggest that someone was lying, and I'm sure that I spent far too long engaging with some folks while trying to stick to that standard.

Of course, that's where skeptics get it wrong so often, i.e., when we fail to – or intentionally act to – assume that we're engaging with people acting in good faith. We're not. People are just bloody lying, pretending, BLAARGing, etc. Ultimately bigfootery is pointless because the beleebers are either lying or pathologically stupid. The skeptic's carefully researched and thoughtfully worded comments are lost on them either way.
 
The Shrike said:
I'm not sure how much is getting sucked-into-the-lore fallacy versus an unstated "if-what-you-claim-is-true, then..." rhetoric.
Click to expand...
This. "If what you claim is true" what was the end game for chasing Patty? You're not shooting her and you're out of film. Or are you going to try to reload your film while giving chase and if so why is there no video of the chase? If you tracked her for at least a mile, where are the photos or video of the trackway a mile away? And how did she get away if you're on horses and shes on foot? Did she suddenly turn into an Olympic sprinter after the lumbering on video? And why did the horses stop being scared enough to comply?

And let's say you caught up to her. Then what? Changing the film reel while giving chase would have probably been too cumbersome. So catching up to take better video is probably not an option. So was the plan to detain this thing?
 
Last edited:
Vulture said:
This. "If what you claim is true" what was the end game for chasing Patty? You're not shooting her and you're out of film. Or are you going to try to reload your film while giving chase and if so why is there no video of the chase? If you tracked her for at least a mile, where are the photos or video of the trackway a mile away? And how did she get away if you're on horses and shes on foot? Did she suddenly turn into an Olympic sprinter after the lumbering on video? And why did the horses stop being scared enough to comply?

And let's say you caught up to her. Then what? Changing the film reel while giving chase would have probably been too cumbersome. So catching up to take better video is probably not an option. So was the plan to detain this thing?
Click to expand...
Following that line of logic has just gotten me thinking about something else I don't think I've ever seen bigfooters address: why didn't anyone immediately go back to the film site and try to take more film or capture her?

After all, wasn't his initial story that he was finally able to get video of one of these things because Patty was old, slow, and maybe somewhat blind? So he thinks he knows the hangout spot of this creature he'd dedicated his life to, and has just found real evidence of, and it would apparently be easy to catch or at least run into again, but doesn't even bother to make an effort. Hell, despite the film site being next to a logging road, no one else even sees this thing hanging around again. For anyone that thinks Roger must not have been hoaxing because why else would he track something, his lack of follow up post-film screening should seem much more suspicious.
 
ArchSas said:
Following that line of logic has just gotten me thinking about something else I don't think I've ever seen bigfooters address: why didn't anyone immediately go back to the film site and try to take more film or capture her?
Click to expand...
The bigfooters don't like to talk about that, but we certainly have here. I mean, this is at least our 5th thread on the topic.
 
Vulture said:
...

One thing I wanted to know- is what was their end game for "tracking" Patty for the 1-3 miles after the film ran out? They claimed they chased after it but did anyone ever ask them what would they have done if they caught up to it?
Click to expand...

As the Shrike has alluded to, of course they have been asked in more ways than one..

The bottom line is; there was no tracking, there was no Bigfoot, so what they would have done if they caught her is beside the point..
 
Skeptical Greg said:
As the Shrike has alluded to, of course they have been asked in more ways than one..

The bottom line is; there was no tracking, there was no Bigfoot, so what they would have done if they caught her is beside the point..
Click to expand...

I think these threads are at their best when skeptics are trying to prove the hoax, and/or believers are trying to prove the film was of a legit bigfoot. My question was along the lines of evidencing the hoax by pointing out another gap in the logic of the story P&G offered.
 
ArchSas said:
Following that line of logic has just gotten me thinking about something else I don't think I've ever seen bigfooters address: why didn't anyone immediately go back to the film site and try to take more film or capture her?

After all, wasn't his initial story that he was finally able to get video of one of these things because Patty was old, slow, and maybe somewhat blind? So he thinks he knows the hangout spot of this creature he'd dedicated his life to, and has just found real evidence of, and it would apparently be easy to catch or at least run into again, but doesn't even bother to make an effort. Hell, despite the film site being next to a logging road, no one else even sees this thing hanging around again. For anyone that thinks Roger must not have been hoaxing because why else would he track something, his lack of follow up post-film screening should seem much more suspicious.
Click to expand...

You'd think they'd rush over there. Maybe get Patterson to show them the site.

They didn't even go to see the film site at all, really.

Patterson never took any of the big time footers back there. Nor did any go on their own.

Bob Titmus went about nine days later, and had trouble finding the spot, and apparently didn't bother to bring a camera.

The only person who checked out the film site in any way at all in a timely manner was Laverty, and he just happened to be in the area anyway for his job and normally had a camera with him to do his job.

If not for Laverty, the first site visit would not have been for nine days.

Footers tended to travel to see tracks and investigate reports, but basically no one bothered to go and investigate the PGF site for months.
 
So apparently I'm not allowed to post links or pictures until I've got 15 posts or more here.

I was looking back at some of Dfoots old posts, I'm pretty fascinated with his discovery of the Wah Chung Star Trek caveman mask which he posits may have been used for Patty's face.

I didnt see a lot of images of this mask on these forums, the pictures that were posted werent the best.

However I think more photos and better photos have since surfaced. One in particular is pretty compelling. It looks like a behind the scenes photo and it has a person in the costume next to a woman. What's interesting is not just how similar the mask looks to the Patty face but also the arms and hands. The arms and the material on them looks like it could've been adapted for the Patty suit. Especially the way the fur on the arm ends and the way the hand begins, it looks really similar, ending with the same "donut" of fur near the wrist.

If someone wants to PM me perhaps i can send the link to the image that way. Or if someone wants to google and find it and post it that would be appreciated.

The Star Trek episode in question was "The Galileo 7".

The image I found was from googling "Star Trek Taurean". Taurean is the name of the race of cave man like people that were depicted in the Wah Chang masks in question.

I searched "Star Trek Taurean" went to images, clicked on the one that is similar to what was posted here before (a not so clear shot of what looks like the character standing next to a block of ice or snow, facing left", (hosted at a site called 70sdisco) and when you click that it's the first image under related images (at a pinterest site titled 491 best rare Star Trek...)
 
Last edited:
The Shrike said:
link
Click to expand...

Thanks Shrike but that's not the image I'm referring to. That one was posted before. I'm referring to a picture that shows the character in costume standing next to a woman and you can see more of a side profile and the right arm and hand.

Well at least I'm one post closer to being able to post it myself.
 
Yes that's the one! Thanks WP. Look at the arm and hand. I think it stands to reason that if Patterson got his hands on that mask he probably got some parts that came with it, and why not use those and build the Patty suit around them? To me the arm and hand looks a lot like the Pattysuit we see in the PGF. Right down to the weird bulge of fur near the wrist. It's a big baggy arm just like we see in the footage. The fur looks similar too. And the big fake hands would likely look the same as in the PGF if shot under those conditions.

Look at the curve of the pinky, and compare to the "perfectfoot" frame. And look how far the middle finger juts out, which to me would give you the appearance of such long hands (the right hand at least) as what you see in the PGF. The donut of fur is in the same place just above the wrist in both. Seriously, compare the perfectfoot frame with this picture. Look at the distance between the donut of fur near the wrist and the end of the pinky.

I think Patterson took that mask, added a fur cap and some facial and head fur to obscure the ears and such, pieced it together with some other suit parts, but pretty much used those arms as is.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Shrike, I had seen those. I really think that suit is a good candidate for the origin of the head and arms/hands that were used on the Pattysuit and not just the mask as had been previously posited.

I also was curious if maybe Patterson also maybe used the feet from this costume, as I cant see him creating those himself. Surely he cobbled together the suit from existing pieces.

I did find one image of the feet of the Taurean costume, but alas, they appeared to be wearing boots. Which makes me think the Pattysuit feet and probably the leg material didnt come from the Taurean costume.

Interestingly theres a Taurean figurine for sale online, and the figurine is barefoot. But I cant find any evidence that the original suit had feet.

I wonder if there's other Star Trek costumes from that era that had feet like what we see on the Pattysuit.

I looked at the Mugato, but those were more apelike feet so it cant be those.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom