Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[LAL]

As for continually trying to goad people into seeing details in the PG film, you're on a hiding to nothing. There's nothing obvious in the film apart from the obvious lack of detail in such a small and grainy image. You see sharply defiined musculature, we see a hairy black shape. It's only useful as a kind of Rorshach inkblot; belive and you see a female sasquatch in all her muscly glory, dont believe and it looks awfully like a guy in a hair suit being badly filmed.

I'd be interested to know just where you've seen the PGF.

 

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

Not in my local Googleplex, that's for sure.

I've seen it on TV quite a few times in several different documentaries. I've seen it on the net on various sites and reposted on this forum a couple of times in links. We continually see blow-ups and single frames as well. They all show images of a hairy-looking biped apparently taken at distance with a hand-held camera, usually in black & white. It is not stable, not very detailed and very far from being conclusive, as these huge debates continue to show.

When i tell you I really cant see the details you guys are going on about, I mean I REALLY cant see what you're going on about. The quality and length of the film means that anything you see is more interpretation than fact. Believers see a female bigfoot strolling into the woods on a film captured by a documentary maker. Skeptics see a hairy biped captured by a guy who went out to make a film about bigfoot and rather conveniently got the shot almost right away where others failed.

It boils down to your interpretation, and the PG film is a tabula-rasa that people can project pretty much anything on to.

 

[LAL]

I think that's the problem: TV documentaries.

I saw it on a big screen in Portland, Oregon (the original Sunn pictures production) probably in 1974. I own LMS. That version was taken from John Green's first generation copy.

I have several TV documentaries on DVD and most are pretty poor. A&E's Ancient Mysteries is one of the worst, with the figure so dark there's no detail to be seen.

Patricia Patterson started handing out poor VHS copies because she'd been burned so many times.

If you can, view the LMS version on a Hi Def sreen and see the cibachromes (in color) in Meet the Sasquatch by Chris Murphy.

You may be able to see a lot more.

The thing that struck me in the theater (besides seeing someone I knew), was the fluid movement.

There wasn't anything "convenient about the filming. They'd been in the area for about three weeks trying to find tracks fresh enough for filming. They worked hard for what they got. The hoax scenario relies a lot on misinformation, I'm afraid.

 

[LAL]

I think that's the problem: TV documentaries.

I saw it on a big screen in Portland, Oregon (the original Sunn pictures production) probably in 1974. I own LMS. That version was taken from John Green's first generation copy.

I have several TV documentaries on DVD and most are pretty poor. A&E's Ancient Mysteries is one of the worst, with the figure so dark there's no detail to be seen.

Patricia Patterson started handing out poor VHS copies because she'd been burned so many times.

If you can, view the LMS version on a Hi-Def screen and see the cibachromes (in color) in Meet the Sasquatch by Chris Murphy.

You may be able to see a lot more.

The thing that struck me in the theater (besides seeing someone I knew), was the fluid movement. It seems the speed is wrong in some of the documentaries making the gait seem a bit jerky.

There wasn't anything "convenient" about the filming. They'd been in the area for about three weeks trying to find tracks fresh enough for filming. They worked hard for what they got. The hoax scenario relies a lot on misinformation, I'm afraid.

 

[Luminous]

What evidence is against it? Has some proved they don't exist? Have I missed something?

Experience and common sense tell me the world is flat and experts can be wrong, therefore the world is flat.

There's considerable evidence. Trying to explain it all away as hoaxing misidentification and elk lay doesn't make it go away.

Soarwing, Leo and the inimitable Roger Knights have also been on this board. Did anyone mention Hunster, who held the fort while I took a much needed break after nine months of going it alone here?

I've had supportive e-mails from people who tend to agree but are afraid to post because of the animosity.

I'm surprised Ray G thinks I'm emotionally attached to the subject. I hadn't noticed that and I'm me.

Wow, there's actually a proponent on the board with me! Suddenly I don't feel so alone! Roll out the red carpet for LAL everybody! We'll maybe not everybody... It's probably more like me rolling it out alone. Anyway, welcome LAL. I see you've accumulated quite a few posts here it seems.

 

[Locknar]

LAL – You are right in that TV “documentaries”, and confirmed hoaxes (such as Ray Wallace), Philip Morris’ claim that Patterson paid him to make the suit, Bob Heironimus’ claim that Patterson paid him to wear the suit, certainly weaken the argument wrt the “Patterson” film being genuine (and not a hoax).

Do I think the film is a hoax – yes. I’ve looked at stabilized versions of the film, “muscle photos”, etc.; what I see is a guy in a suit, foam or costume lumps, etc. I know others, viewing the same material, see Bigfoot, muscles, etc.

In part, the poor quality of the film makes it virtually impossible to prove as genuine or as a hoax.

Do I believe “Bigfoot” really exists, as some hairy bipedal hominoid…no; however this is not based solely on the Patterson film.

Overall…I simply find it inconceivable that such an animal/creature would exist yet not leave any dead, droppings, or other credible evidence (ie. that clear photo, that clear video, dwellings, etc.) given the amount of time & effort that has been put into tracking it say in the last 100 years (let alone other parts of the world with similar “Bigfoot” claims).

I have to admit to a certain “what if” factor in that I think it would be cool if Bigfoot existed.. That said I simply have not seen, read, heard any evidence that would make be believe in its existence vs the last 100 years of non-credible/lack of evidence.

 

[Luminous]

(Attention LAL) A Patterson Creation?

I posted this:

A closeup of Patty. Note the large deltoid, the clear tricep and bicep, the unusually long brachioradialis with flexible digits, the external oblique, the top of her quadriceps, which in moving video show its flex action. Off picture, are the tibialis, gastrocnemius and Soleus, the Latissiumus Dorsi and the trapezius and last but not least the stemocleidomastoid is also visible. In 67 a gorilla suit with all of these features did not exist. What use would there be in making a gorilla costume with all these features? They would all be obscured by hair anyway. That's my final point, skin can be seen through its short fur, as well as all these muscle groups. A Patterson creation? Impossible.

LAL I posted this above and the skeptics have played every trick and game to try and evade admitting seeing obvious the musculature. They've gone from "Look at this over here" to "I don't see it" to turning the table and saying, "You prove it." In fact, I've observed so many different evasion tactics that I could write a small book about them all.

The last guy wanted me to post a moving version showing the muscle flex and jiggle in the quads. I don't have postable footage of that, do you by any chance?

 

[Hellbound]

The last guy wanted me to post a moving version showing the muscle flex and jiggle in the quads. I don't have postable footage of that, do you by any chance?

No, you mis-read what I stated. A moving version would be great. But at least, you need still-frames of the same area in multiple positions/movements, so the positioning, contraction, and expansion of the muscles can be verified. A still-shot, no matter how detailed, will not prove actual working muscles.

And no, I don't have the footage you'd need currently available, but it isn't my claim to prove. I've made no claim, I simply don't believe yours, as you've shown very little in the way of actual proof or support for it.

I'm simply asking you to provide the evidence. From your comments, it is clearly there, so this should not be difficult. A moving clip would be great, but sequential still-frames would work as well. Even non-sequential frames, each showing the same muscle group in a different position, would be adequate.

 

[Luminous]

Evasion Tactics Skeptics Use

I'm posting a modified version of this because the edit option is gone and I wanted to add a few new tactics.

The games skeptics play:

First of all, I've noticed that you skeptics play "blind" when it's convenient to what you believe and then you claim to "see" when it's profitable to your argument. You have "selective vision."

If you were staring at a painting of a horse, you would undoubtedly say, "it's a pig," if it was in some way beneficial to the convoluted opinion that you have of yourself.

The musculature I pointed out on Patty is there whether you like it or not. If you were to call it foam rubber, that would be more honest than playing dumb and saying. "It's not there." It's there and you know it. It's right in front of your eyes. You're just too arrogant to admit it. Just about any bodybuilder could clearly identify the muscle groups I described. "But I see a pig," says the skeptic.

You see what you want to see. You're blind to what you don't want to see. This is nothing more than deception and dishonesty. Right about here is where you try to switch the argument to, "That's what your doing, not us." (The old bait and switch tactic.)

With tactics like these, you can never lose an argument. This "I don't see it" crap is a little too convenient.

A skeptics' tactics:
Sorry, I don't see it
I see something else, what are you seeing?
Change the subject (Smokescreen)
Your evidence is not enough, prove it
Table turning (That's not us, that's you!)
Be contrary to everything even at the expense of the truth
Ignore what was said altogether
Never admit ignorance
Never admit when you're wrong
Never, ever concede when you've lost an argument
When you can't win the argument, attack the person's character
Mock and make fun of the presenter and what is presented
Point out their spelling errors just to be annoying.

You can't even have a good debate here. This superiority, oneupmanship and having to win every argument keeps you from truly being objective. I call you "contrarians," because that's all you are. You approach everything that is presented with a know-it-all attitude, and you take the opposite side of everything that is presented, just for the sheer thrill of it. You love to hear yourself argue. And in your mind you always "win." Most of the time your opinions prevail over actual fact, however.

Using the tactics listed above, you can "win" every time. But it's only a "win" in your own mind.

Strong opinions are okay, as long as you are willing to yield and listen to others and lay aside your opinion when a stronger consensus prevails. So far I've seen none of this among you.

No true debate can take place with you because these tactics that you use are unethical and dishonest. In short, your not concerned with truth -- you simply like to hear yourself speak. These are games that I refuse to play.

If somebody here has the voice of true reason, now is the time to speak concerning these things.

 

[LAL]

LAL – You are right in that TV “documentaries”, and confirmed hoaxes (such as Ray Wallace),

What's confirmed about Ray Wallace?

and Philip Morris’ claim that Patterson paid him to make the suit,

$416 + S&H, but he doesn't have a record. Have you seen pictures of the $1200 suit?

Bob Heironimus’ claim that Patterson paid him to wear the suit, certainly weaken the argument wrt the “Patterson” film being genuine (and not a hoax).

Only if you don't look closely. Heironimus makes it up as he goes along.

Do I think the film is a hoax – yes. I’ve looked at stabilized versions of the film, “muscle photos”, etc.; what I see is a guy in a suit, foam or costume lumps, etc. I know others, viewing the same material, see Bigfoot, muscles, etc.

In part, the poor quality of the film makes it virtually impossible to prove as genuine or as a hoax.

It's pretty good, actually, considering it was shot with a hand held 16mm camera in 1967. The original is clear, at least where there isn't motion blur.

Have you read Krantz' analysis based on a frame-by-frame viewing of a first generation copy through a film editor?

Do I believe “Bigfoot” really exists, as some hairy bipedal hominoid…no; however this is not based solely on the Patterson film.

Overall…I simply find it inconceivable that such an animal/creature would exist yet not leave any dead, droppings, or other credible evidence (ie. that clear photo, that clear video, dwellings, etc.) given the amount of time & effort that has been put into tracking it say in the last 100 years (let alone other parts of the world with similar “Bigfoot” claims).

A lot of people seem to think they don't leave droppings; of course they do. They die, too, but the scavenger system makes short work of carcasses. Sick and dying animals tend to hole up where they're not likely to be found.

If there were clearer video, the skeptics would just say it's a clear video of a hoax.

I have to admit to a certain “what if” factor in that I think it would be cool if Bigfoot existed.. That said I simply have not seen, read, heard any evidence that would make be believe in its existence vs the last 100 years of non-credible/lack of evidence.

I suggest you do a little more research. Want a reading list?

 

[LAL]

I posted this:
The last guy wanted me to post a moving version showing the muscle flex and jiggle in the quads. I don't have postable footage of that, do you by any chance?

No. I've got step-throughs from three or four different documentaries, though. I hesitate to do .gifs for this board because of size limitations. I could try Photobucket when I have the time. I don't right now.

They whole thing's on YouTube, isn't it?

 

[LAL]

Wow, there's actually a proponent on the board with me! Suddenly I don't feel so alone! Roll out the red carpet for LAL everybody! We'll maybe not everybody... It's probably more like me rolling it out alone. Anyway, welcome LAL. I see you've accumulated quite a few posts here it seems.

Thanks for the red carpet. At least I don't have to worry about anybody stepping on it.

Kathy Moskowitz Strain was on the Challenge thread for awhile. She didn't last long.

I think I have the record for rhinoceros-hided proponents sticking it out here. I'm very grateful to these folks for making me do my homework.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Hello Luminous ?

Going to address the problem with the gastrocnemius, or are just going to whine and groan about how skeptics just dismiss the PGF out of hand ?


You and Lu give each other lots of big hugs, and complain about how you are being mistreated ...

On the other hand, you could actually present evidence about your claims regarding ' clearly real muscles ' ....

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, we all see stuff moving on Patty. The question is whether or not you can say for sure what it is.

The idea that we are playing blind is nothing but a lie, of course.

Several of us scoftics have isolated our own examples of things moving that we'd like explained, and we've done it more than once.

My last example, iirc, was the huge calf bulge occuring at what seems to be the wrong time in the stride.

There is also the appearance of the "foot" slipping at one point, as if it fits poorly.

What's confirmed about Ray Wallace?

There's the old obtuse girl that I know and love!
Now that's blindness!

 

[Luminous]

No, you mis-read what I stated. A moving version would be great. But at least, you need still-frames of the same area in multiple positions/movements, so the positioning, contraction, and expansion of the muscles can be verified. A still-shot, no matter how detailed, will not prove actual working muscles.

And no, I don't have the footage you'd need currently available, but it isn't my claim to prove. I've made no claim, I simply don't believe yours, as you've shown very little in the way of actual proof or support for it.

I'm simply asking you to provide the evidence. From your comments, it is clearly there, so this should not be difficult. A moving clip would be great, but sequential still-frames would work as well. Even non-sequential frames, each showing the same muscle group in a different position, would be adequate.

I have more stills where I can point out the muscle groups, but nothing consecutive that I could make an animated gif from. Although I don't agree with his ideas, M.K. Davis does have the stills and the ability to show exactly what I'm talking about. I don't know the man, and because of my stance on his beliefs, I doubt he would want to help me out here. Personally, I think the stills clearly show the musculature. That was my point. I only mentioned flex and jiggle in response to some one claiming it was a suit. I've seen this flex and jiggle that I refer to, and unless BH wore tight spandex and had humongous quads, there's no way cloth and fake fur could flex and jiggle like that. And Patterson didn't have the means or the skill to include muscle shaped gel pads to make it look realistic.

You're asking me the believe that Patterson was the greatest cosume maker in all of Hollywood during his day. Everyone knows that's not true.

Just look at the creature's back and then look at a gorilla's back. Are you saying Patterson used foam padding to create the spine line and the clear latissiumus dorsi muscles? And what about the clear deltoids, are you saying they were simply football pads? Of course you have the clearly defined gluteus maximus muscles, those are just pillows, right? I have gastrocnemius and soleus muscles shaped like Patty's, but no where near as large or as perfectly formed. But they are clearly seen. Unless you're going to play "blind," like the others, there is no other choice but to admit that they are there.

Admitting that you see them will make you more honest than the rest. As to how to explain them, that's a different story. To you this is nothing more than cloth and padding. To me, this is far too anatomically correct to dismiss as mere fakery. Patterson didn't have the ability to make a suit as elaborate as this.

As for the flex and jiggle, you'll have to wait until I have a zoomed in and moving version to show you. But I saw it plain as day. If I ever get footage of this, I will post it for you.

 

[Locknar]

LAL - WRT Ray Wallace, I stand corrected; it is his family that content he hoaxed footprints as a prank. He made no such admission himself.

WRT Morris and Heironimus, you'll note I said "claim" and not fact; they do make the claims mentioned...are they true, dunno, but these claims do cloud the issue.

Whlie the video is good for a '67 16mm camera, it is still poor quality that yeilds fuzzy/grainy frame enlargements.

The contention "If there were clearer video, the skeptics would just say it's a clear video of a hoax" is speculation; there are those that still believe the Earth is flat.

The "scavenger system" arguement does not expalin the total lack of physical evidence on a world wide level (taking into consideration all the "Bigfoot" variations). There would be some remains, someplace....a skeleton, a bone, a tooth, etc....some type of crediable physical evidence.

 

[drapier]

The games skeptics play:

Does pointing to all the games that the mean skeptics play somehow make bigfoot more of a real flesh-and-blood creature? It seems that you have spent more time on complaining about skeptics than on providing an argument for your case.

It's odd that you would join a skeptics' board and yet be outraged that skeptics propose alternative explanations for the "evidence" you cite. (Why aren't you on one of the other boards that Kitakaze noted where you can join the hosanna chorus?) Maybe you see yourself as a martyr witnessing to the TRUTH of bigfoot.

 

[LAL]

LAL - WRT Ray Wallace, I stand corrected; it is his family that content he hoaxed footprints as a prank. He made no such admission himself.

Right. The story grew.

WRT Morris and Heironimus, you'll note I said "claim" and not fact; they do make the claims mentioned...are they true, dunno, but these claims do cloud the issue.

What took them so long? The PGF's been at least semi-famous since 1967.
It's possible Morris did sell Patterson a suit. Suited reenactments were the style of the times (still are).

But what he described is not even close to what Heironimus described.

Whlie the video is good for a '67 16mm camera, it is still poor quality that yeilds fuzzy/grainy frame enlargements.

The cibachromes are good. Seen those?

The contention "If there were clearer video, the skeptics would just say it's a clear video of a hoax" is speculation; there are those that still believe the Earth is flat.

I'm actually not one of them.

The "scavenger system" arguement does not expalin the total lack of physical evidence on a world wide level (taking into consideration all the "Bigfoot" variations). There would be some remains, someplace....a skeleton, a bone, a tooth, etc....some type of crediable physical evidence.

There may be. It takes someone to find it.

 

[Luminous]

Does pointing to all the games that the mean skeptics play somehow make bigfoot more of a real flesh-and-blood creature?

No it makes most skeptics into cloth and fur BS puppets.

It seems that you have spent more time on complaining about skeptics than on providing an argument for your case.

Complaining, no. Exposing, yes.

It's odd that you would join a skeptics' board and yet be outraged that skeptics propose alternative explanations for the "evidence" you cite. (Why aren't you on one of the other boards that Kitakaze noted where you can join the hosanna chorus?) Maybe you see yourself as a martyr witnessing to the TRUTH of bigfoot.

Outraged. Ooo that's a good one. Introduce imagined inflection.

What's next? I'm raging and upset? Or maybe I'm crying and depressed?

I'm studying your every tactical move... Why? Because I can. You're painting yourselves in a corner that you will soon not be able get out of. With your every move, my grasp of your behavior grows clearer and clearer. Say on...

 

[drapier]

I'm studying your every tactical move... Why? Because I can. You're painting yourselves in a corner that you will soon not be able get out of. With your every move, my grasp of your behavior grows clearer and clearer. Say on...

You mean when you actually produce the body we'll all have egg on our faces? I (honestly) look forward to the day.

If the best evidence you can offer are the blown up stills from a 40-year-old, grainy 16mm film, then I think the corner I am painted into is quite a spacious one.