• 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

I like the way Johnsen in the now gone video was making a claim that fair use didn't apply.

Sorry John, the law doesn't change cause you say it does.


I can post a a snip from your movie and discuss it with no profit motive..
 
The video isn't gone. John made it private. It's password protected.
 
Drewbot said:
Lal ask John to post it here.
Click to expand...

What makes you think I can contact him?

The Vimeo video may have been deleted by now. Even his expurgated version of "Hoax of the Century" is gone.
 
Last edited:
Always dispose of the evidence

MBDK said:
You are performing mental gymnastics to arrive at your supposition. Occam's Razor has the flim-flammers keep critical evidence out of a non-flim-flammer's control, and destroy it.
Click to expand...

You don't even have to "destroy" it, per se, you can just send it back to Project Unlimited (if you buy the Pruitt/Chorvinsky conjecture, and I, for one, am provisionally accepting that over over the Morris version at this time based on one thing and another*, although it's not a hill I'm willing to die on) and Prohaska takes his shirt and pants and Chang takes his head and they put them in their respective closets and the evidence is effectively erased.

I certainly agree "best practice" in a hoax is to dispose of the suit, but I can also imagine a reluctance to do so. I am careful, though, to recognize such speculative speculation as exactly that.

I've found myself with a lot of time on my hands lately, and I decided to spend it deep-diving the PGF, and that lead me to these forums and I've been slogging through the PGF thread here, seemingly as unkillable as the legend that spawned it, and it's a pretty wild ride. This is actually my first post.

*"one reason and another" mostly being it's a better story that way, and Jeff Pruitt impressed me as a guy who knows what he's talking about, and his tales of gorilla-men kayfabe jibes with Chorvinksy's stories of knowing more than he's at liberty to say, although I recognize how fraught such a position is. That, and Morris gives me a bit of the ol' Stan Lee/Bob Kane vibe, where he promotes himself by taking credit for other people's work.
 
Capstone statement on PGF

I tell you what...knowing what I now know about Roger Patterson; even if Bigfoot were a known animal, as uncontroversial as the German Shepherd, I'd still take even odds Patty is a guy in a suit.
 
George,
Have you read the Making of Bigfoot, by Greg Long?

This is a great book about the people involved.
 
Drewbot said:
George,
Have you read the Making of Bigfoot, by Greg Long?

This is a great book about the people involved.
Click to expand...

I haven't read that yet, if I can borrow it from the internet archive I will read it this weekend, and I see Long has some interviews on YouTube I should look into.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
Pick out your favorite piece of new " evidence ", and we can go over it again.
Click to expand...

My favorite piece of "new evidence" is...I guess it's not "new," exactly, but it's new to me, is:

if you build a weird little platform...I guess "gallows" is the best word for it, what with the sudden drop, in your garage, and have topless young women stand on it, you see the ol' "milk shake" in a way sort of like "Patty's" puppies bounce, but if you mold those same mammaries in rubber, and drop them off your little apparatus, they are rock-steady. This doesn't convince me of anything about the PGF, but you have to admit, it sure beats working for a living.
 
George F Haley said:
My favorite piece of "new evidence" is...I guess it's not "new," exactly, but it's new to me, is:

if you build a weird little platform...I guess "gallows" is the best word for it, what with the sudden drop, in your garage, and have topless young women stand on it, you see the ol' "milk shake" in a way sort of like "Patty's" puppies bounce, but if you mold those same mammaries in rubber, and drop them off your little apparatus, they are rock-steady. This doesn't convince me of anything about the PGF, but you have to admit, it sure beats working for a living.
Click to expand...


I'm reminded of the conversation in the Will Smith "Wild Wild West" movie about the importance of choosing the right material when constructing artificial breasts in order to ensure that they move as naturally as possible.
 
"One of Patty's puppies bounce and the other one doesn't..

What does that mean?"

One is a football, the other is a flexible canteen? Or, uh...they're both made of the same material, but whatever gravitivity and polarity affects the one doesn't propagate to the other, probably because they're only sort of attached to the body in the first place. At most I would accept Munn's experiments as good evidence Patterson jenny-hanivered the suit he got from PM or PU*...in some other way than a hard breast plate, to have boobs. That, and express my admiration for the ingenuity of getting young women to take their tops off, although I would note there are more elegant solutions to that problem, even for fat old men with more ridiculous obsessions than liquid assets.

* Where do we stand on that? Is there anything beyond Pruitt says this guy knew that guy at cowboy-town, and the suit seems to be built the way they built a suit, and hearsay about hearsay about...one of those conspiracies of silence you might see on The Rockford Files, are we all in on Morris? And is it just me, or does Prohaska show a lot of duper's delight and other deception indicators in the ANE movie where they interview him? And his wife isn't even doing as good a job of keeping a straight face as he is?


This might deserve its own thread, but how hard would it be to get gorilla DNA? Could you use onem CRISPR kits to make it look more human, or make human DNA look more gorillaish? Could you even just smear some around in the woods and send it off to the lab and act like that proved something? Could the average bigfooter obtain some in relative secrecy, hide the evidence, and get the four or five people who'd have to be in on something like that to stick to their stories for, say...a year and a half?
 
Last edited:
George F Haley said:
"One of Patty's puppies bounce and the other one doesn't..

What does that mean?"

One is a football, the other is a flexible canteen? Or, uh...they're both made of the same material, but whatever gravitivity and polarity affects the one doesn't propagate to the other, probably because they're only sort of attached to the body in the first place. At most I would accept Munn's experiments as good evidence Patterson jenny-hanivered the suit he got from PM or PU*...in some other way to have boobs. That, and express my admiration for the ingenuity of getting young women to take their tops off, although I would note there are more elegant solutions to that problem, even for fat old men with more ridiculous obsessions than liquid assets.

* Where do we stand on that? Is there anything beyond Pruitt says this guy knew that guy at cowboy-town, and the suit seems to be built the way they built a suit, and hearsay about hearsay about...one of those conspiracies of silence you might see on The Rockford Files, are we all in on Morris? And is it just me, or does Prohaska show a lot of duper's delight and other deception indicators in the ANE movie where they interview him? And his wife isn't even doing as good a job of keeping a straight face as he is?


This might deserve its own thread
Click to expand...


My question is....why make the suit have boobs in the first place? That seems like an odd place to focus any efforts.
 
My question is....why make the suit have boobs in the first place?
Click to expand...

It's a long story.. You could start here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42523

The short answer, is that years before the film was made there were stories and sketches of alleged sightings that included boob-like structure, so Patterson was trying to add some authenticity to his creature by including features that had been seen before..

Here:

https://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=1083
 
It's been 20 years since I visited the PG site at bluff creek to do some research for my first book, and I still have an interest in the tale even though I know it was a complete hoax. Long Live Bigfoot! :)
 
Skeptical Greg said:
It's a long story.. You could start here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42523

The short answer, is that years before the film was made there were stories and sketches of alleged sightings that included boob-like structure, so Patterson was trying to add some authenticity to his creature by including features that had been seen before..

Here:

https://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=1083
Click to expand...

That Gal had some nice cones! Looks like the artist relocated her nips though so she's a bit unnatural.
 
Patty's look is copied from an illustration by Morton Kunstler for a 1960 magazine article. Patterson copied the illustration for his pre-PGF book, so he clearly knew Kunstler's work. The magazine article is about the alleged Roe encounter in 1953, in Canada. It is supposed to be the same individual referenced in the sketch linked by Skeptical Greg.
 
Some of the commentary from the Roe encounter sounds a lot like Patterson's later description of the filming encounter.. Script?

Finally, the wild thing must have got my scent, for it looked directly at me through an opening in the brush. A look of amazement crossed its face. It looked so comical at the moment I had to grin. Still in a crouched position, it backed up three or four steps, then straightened up to its full height and started to walk rapidly back the way it had come. For a moment it watched me over its shoulder as it went, not exactly afraid, but as though it wanted no contact with anything strange.
Click to expand...

Instructions for the bloke in the suit...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom