Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[tube]

Correct. The gorilla suit shown in Long's book is not the model that was purchased by Patterson.

If this is the case, then Long did a great disservice to his readers by showing a misleading photograph in his book. Perhaps Long did mention in his book that what we see in his "Dr. Evil" photo is not the suit he sold Patterson, but I don't recall that, and I've read the book twice.

I should like to add that I'm certainly convinced that Heironimus had A suit, as we have multiple witnesses attest to seeing a suit associated with him. It's hard to imagine what else Heironimus would be doing with a suit than staring in Patterson's movie, but it is POSSIBLE.

If you look at all these Bigfoot type documentaries on the History or Discovery channel, you see what we might call "B-roll", or simply filler footage of an obvious guy-in-a-suit. I know the TV show Mysterious Encounters by hosted by Autumn Williams had the occasional hairy figure walk by...

So frankly I'm willing to entertain the POSSIBILITY that there is more to the story, that Heironimus had a suit and used it in some other capacity than at Bluff Creek.

But yes, there are certainly aspects to the film subject itself that suggest costume, i.e. stiff butt and breasts, and the weird folding wrinkle you see at the right thigh. Personally, I perceive that there is a discontinuity between the chest area and the hips, especially when the film subject twists. It is as if the film subject is wearing a jacket and pants. The pants stay fixed relative to the twisting "jacket".

But the bottom line is that I'm not a costume expert, and so I leave it to people like Stan Winston who are.

Even as a child, I had a problem with a guy being able to deploy a camera after being thrown from a horse fast enough to capture on film the wildest of wild animals. Even as a child, the luck involved in the guy "just out making a documentary" just happening to catch his quarry seemed rather farfetched.

I must say, even though most of MK Davis notions are obviously foolish, I think he may be onto something with his claim of the film starting and stopping. I also think Heironimus' claim that Patterson started filming the shaking first part from horeseback deserves some attention.

Did Patterson start filming from horseback, stop the camera, dismount, then start running?

 

[tube]

He engages in a kind of pareidolia using distorted images from the PGF.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Were he not in Bigfootery, I'm sure Davis would find his talents appreciated finding puffs of smoke on the "Grassy Knoll", or acne scars on the "Face on Mars".

 

[William Parcher]

If this is the case, then Long did a great disservice to his readers by showing a misleading photograph in his book. Perhaps Long did mention in his book that what we see in his "Dr. Evil" photo is not the suit he sold Patterson, but I don't recall that, and I've read the book twice.

You could say it's a disservice. It's a Morris gorilla suit, but not the correct one. Phil Morris explains this and how that image could be misleading. My question is: Does Morris hold an actual photo of the model that Patterson bought? He does say that it seems none of these costumes still exist.

I should like to add that I'm certainly convinced that Heironimus had A suit, as we have multiple witnesses attest to seeing a suit associated with him. It's hard to imagine what else Heironimus would be doing with a suit than staring in Patterson's movie, but it is POSSIBLE.

Agreed. However, that would mean that Heironimus really is telling lies about being Patty. But he seems to know things about the event that would come from being there and wearing the Patty suit.

If you look at all these Bigfoot type documentaries on the History or Discovery channel, you see what we might call "B-roll", or simply filler footage of an obvious guy-in-a-suit. I know the TV show Mysterious Encounters by hosted by Autumn Williams had the occasional hairy figure walk by...

The PGF B-roll stuff has an interesting twist. Still images from what was supposed to be the 2nd roll have a distinct orangeish color cast. As if there was something "wrong" with the processing. That color can be linked to stills of the plaster pouring and also RP on horseback. Did you notice that?

So frankly I'm willing to entertain the POSSIBILITY that there is more to the story, that Heironimus had a suit and used it in some other capacity than at Bluff Creek.

Right. But if BH had another suit in addition to wearing the Patty suit at Bluff Creek - he could say that. Otherwise, his entire testimony about being Patty and working with P&G to bring this about - is a complete fabrication. Keep in mind that it wouldn't be a simple lie. At the same time that BH "confesses" to wearing the suit, he instantly implicates Bob Gimlin in the hoax. So BH lies by saying that his neighbor (BG) is a liar? That is heavy-duty sociopathic or psychotic behavior. BH makes himself completely vulnerable to litigation from BG by doing this. Now contemplate Gimlin's behavior towards BH and the Bigfooter community since the time that BH confessed.

But yes, there are certainly aspects to the film subject itself that suggest costume, i.e. stiff butt and breasts, and the weird folding wrinkle you see at the right thigh. Personally, I perceive that there is a discontinuity between the chest area and the hips, especially when the film subject twists. It is as if the film subject is wearing a jacket and pants. The pants stay fixed relative to the twisting "jacket".

Right. Dfoot was on the right track before he went AWOL. Three sections - waist to feet (pants), torso to hands (jacket), and head/helmet.

I must say, even though most of MK Davis notions are obviously foolish, I think he may be onto something with his claim of the film starting and stopping. I also think Heironimus' claim that Patterson started filming the shaking first part from horeseback deserves some attention.

Heironimus and Davis/Holbrook/Murphy seem to now be in agreement on that (after the Biscardi program). The pro-Patty crowd all tried to use a misunderstanding of BH's testimony to show that he was a liar. They thought BH had said that RP had remained on the horse throughout the filming. He never said that. Even Lu tried to say that here about a month ago. They are trying to pick apart BH's testimony by examining it word-for-word and looking at it from their own (contrary) context. Roger Knights specializes in this. When BH is given the chance to explain his testimony in Long's book (which he does in the Biscardi program), it results in making perfect sense. I'm sure that BH & GL are nearly astounded at the various ways that pro-PGFers misunderstand what BH says about his experience. I know that they do it on purpose, as if they were lawyers engaged in a criminal trial with BH as the criminal. They try to slash and stab at him, but when he's on the stand he gives comprehensive responses. Real lawyers would cringe at their approach, because you are supposed to "know the answer" to any question you ask the criminal. Bob immediately points out that they are not familiar or have a distorted view of what actually happened. In my opinion that back-and-forth rapid Q&A tore the believers to shreds.

Did Patterson start filming from horseback, stop the camera, dismount, then start running?

Heironimus only knows that Patterson started filming from horseback (and was shaking the camera) and then dismounts to continue filming. He can't know if and when RP stopped the camera at any point. This is where it becomes interesting on a number of levels.

Patterson said that he never stopped (lifted his finger) filming Patty until he ran out of film. MK Davis now claims that Roger stopped filming three times during the PGF. Davis can't really know if these "stops" represent Roger lifting his finger or were edits to the film. He can't even know if the very last Patty frame shown is when Roger lifted his finger, ran out of film, or made an editing cut. Listen again to Davis as he gives "Patterson logic" to one of the film stops. He says that Patty appears to drop down and out of Roger's sight, and goes on to explain that Roger would naturally have stopped the camera until he "reacquired" her visually... then starts filming her again.

EDIT: spelling.

 

[William Parcher]

Were he not in Bigfootery, I'm sure Davis would find his talents appreciated finding puffs of smoke on the "Grassy Knoll", or acne scars on the "Face on Mars".

Indeed. What Davis does is examine countless and often distorted frames until he finds his gold. He can even take a single image and apply increasing manipulation until he gets his desired result. Then he presents it outside of the context of the film itself. Notice that he rarely uses the best (resolution, color, contrast, etc.) still frames to show what he is finding. All that funky stuff he finds (braids, scars, clinging feces, sticks & rocks, etc.) all come from images that he is selecting and manipulating in his own way.

Yeah, Davis is like Hoagland. But he is also like Beckjord in that respect; because he has "found" things like Coke bottles attached to the arms, monkey faces on side of the head, a clinging baby on the front and/or back, and a hanging tampon string!

 

[tube]

Right. Dfoot was on the right track before he went AWOL. Three sections - waist to feet (pants), torso to hands (jacket), and head/helmet.

Well, part of my skepticism about Morris' claim was based Dfoot's input. Dfoot maintained that what we see on the film is NOT a Morris suit. Perhaps Dfoot reacted like I did, and based his opinion on the suit seen in Long's book.

 

[William Parcher]

Dfoot could not have seen the suit that Morris sold to Patterson. He only saw pictures of Morris' "other" gorilla suits. Presumably, that exact suit is pictured in Morris' 1967 catalog. I really would like to see an image of that exact suit. Morris seems to imply that that model wasn't used in any known film or TV, except for the PGF. He sold more of them besides one to Roger, but none of them are presently accounted-for as actual artifacts or in the hands of individuals.

Dfoot was on the way to making a good replica of Patty. But I think he was over-engineering it in certain ways. The PGF suit was low-tech just like Morris says it was. Patterson customized it in a number of ways to turn it into a Bigfoot. With modern technology, we can analyze the PGF and see its costume flaws. Even Morris didn't notice that stuff at first; not until he got a better look at the film. Recall what he told Biscardi about seeing the PGF for the first time on TV with his wife. "That's my suit! Look at the size of the guy they put inside of it. His butt is huge!" That is a very precious first-hand account of Morris making a mistake. He thought it was one of his suits that was unmodified and being worn by some giant guy. For me, it speaks towards his honesty for even bringing it up in Biscardi's show. Phil Morris would not have thought to put pillows in his suits, because gorillas don't have huge butts.

 

[William Parcher]

Parcher wrote: The PGF B-roll stuff has an interesting twist. Still images from what was supposed to be the 2nd roll have a distinct orangeish color cast. As if there was something "wrong" with the processing. That color can be linked to stills of the plaster pouring and also RP on horseback. Did you notice that?

Scratch that idea. It's an unintentional orange herring. I just found still images from the 2nd reel without the orange coloring.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

In the Green interview, Gimlin and Green talk about a box full of film ..

We have never seen more than 2 minutes of footage, which includes the Patty segment..

There is nothing that shows when the Patty footage was shot, other than the indication it was early fall ..

It hasn't been shown that the Patty footage is an uncut piece of film, or that it represents the end of a 100 foot reel .. We are just supposed to take the bleevers word for it ..

You just have to wonder if some of that missing footage might show something that would clear things up a bit..

Dollars to donuts, if that missing footage supported the ' real live Bigfoot ' position, it wouldn't still be missing...

 

[kitakaze]

Aw CARP! WP, I tried to download the show from your link and again directly from Biscardi's site, no dice. Has it been taken down? I'm really going to be kicking myself if I missed it. Bah!

 

[William Parcher]

It's there and it works. Here's a direct hyperlink to the file, which is an mp3. Mine opens in QuickTime player.

 

[William Parcher]

You just have to wonder if some of that missing footage might show something that would clear things up a bit.. Dollars to donuts, if that missing footage supported the ' real live Bigfoot ' position, it wouldn't still be missing...

I've speculated the same thing. It may be possible that at least some of the PGF 'principals' (those who hold or held the complete 'public' version of the 1st and/or 2nd reel) realized that some of the footage is incriminating. That would even be after Roger had the ability to cut out the most obviously incriminating bits. With Roger knowing that he could edit the film before presenting it to the public - it wouldn't matter to him if he even filmed the suit being pulled out of the sack.

 

[kitakaze]

Hmmm... That's not working for me either. When I click on it I get an HTTP 403 error. It must be a problem on my end. I'm currently having that problem with my computer where something seems to have messed up my browser settings and the fonts on the page and when I post are all messed up and certain icons are now displayed as numerals or letters. I've been trying to fix it for the past several days but no luck as I'm not much of a wiz. I've had the problem and fixed it before sometime back and I know it has something to do with a font size that the browser can't display but I simply can't remember what the exact solution was. Maybe I'll run it by the tech section but if anyone knows this problem I'd be dearly grateful to hear about it as it's a major headache.

 

[William Parcher]

Post a description of your problem in the JREF Forum 'Computers and the Internet' section. You'll get suggestions pronto.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I've speculated the same thing. It may be possible that at least some of the PGF 'principals' (those who hold or held the complete 'public' version of the 1st and/or 2nd reel) realized that some of the footage is incriminating. That would even be after Roger had the ability to cut out the most obviously incriminating bits. With Roger knowing that he could edit the film before presenting it to the public - it wouldn't matter to him if he even filmed the suit being pulled out of the sack.

We know for a fact that Roger was trying to make a documentary, which he obviously hoped to make money with.
He had the camera for many months and shot several rolls of film ..

The movie called for the Bigfoot to be encountered at some point, so obviously Roger had to prepare for this by creating a Bigfoot costume… Even if we allow that P&G stumbled upon a real Bigfoot ( Patty ) and caught her on film, he must have had the makings of a costume somewhere, to include in his movie. It only stands to reason that he probably filmed or photographed this costume-in-progress at some point ..
Nevertheless, Patty being real remains highly unlikely..

In viewing the ‘ Patty ‘ footage, Patterson decides it’s worth a try to pass it off as a real encounter , rather than go to the trouble to put together his footage and try to market a “ The Hunt for Bigfoot “ documentary .. If no one ‘ bit ‘, or Gimlin or BH didn’t play along, he was no worse off ..

I think Patterson’s ( and Gimlin’s ) failure to push for an actual search for Patty, shouts ‘ HOAX ‘, louder than any of the other evidence in this matter.
Patterson, aspiring entrepreneur that he was, would have known there would be a lot more money and fame in snagging the real creature, than the film would ever bring.
All the rationalizing about P&G being afraid is complete BS.
If they were afraid; particularly of the possibility of a bigger male being in the area, why did they track her at all, or camp out in the area overnight, after the encounter?

If Patterson thought he had found the real thing, he would have been back with dogs and a lot of rope..

To believe anything else is the height of credulousness ..

 

[William Parcher]

In viewing the ‘Patty‘ footage, Patterson decides it’s worth a try to pass it off as a real encounter, rather than go to the trouble to put together his footage and try to market a “The Hunt for Bigfoot“ documentary.. If no one ‘bit‘, or Gimlin or BH didn’t play along, he was no worse off..

In the Biscardi radio show, Heironimus says that he thought Roger was going to announce soon after its 'public release' that it was all staged.


I found this at Hancock House. It looks like the famous Laverty photo that has been 'flipped'. But it also appears to be from a different angle.

 

[LTC8K6]

Has anyone given a good reason for the straight line next to that footprint?

 

[William Parcher]

Has anyone given a good reason for the straight line next to that footprint?

I haven't read an explanation, but that track was presumably one covered with bark by Gimlin. The line might represent the edge of the bark piece.

 

[William Parcher]

Amazing similarity with the famous Laverty "Patty" footprint and one in a picture from Cryptomundo. What is outstanding is the extreme angle of the toes.

 

[LTC8K6]

Obviously, someone copied Patty's track...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I have been told that this is the cast of the Laverty track ..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=13850&view=findpost&p=312914

It does look more like the other Bluff Creek pics we have been shown.

The angle of the toes in the photo, is a distortion caused by the angle of the field of view..

It's also obvious that we are not looking at a mid-tarsal break, but rather some debris that was stepped on ..