Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[William Parcher]

I think one of the wonderful things about the idea of bigfoot is that the big hairy man (unlike, say, baboons or people who chat about bigfoot on internet discussion boards) is never reported picking nits or making life miserable for other bigfeet. Like a more authentic version of Henry David Thoreau, bigfoot chooses the solitude of nature over the petty strife of society.

There are reports of BF fighting and even killing each other. I remember reading one story that told of a witnessed fight to the death between two males. The victor then plunged its hand into the chest of the loser and pulled out the heart. It raised this up to the sky and roared. I can't remember if it ate the heart.

Many Bigfooters theorize that they are territorial, or at least the males are. They believe territories are physically marked and also indicated with vocalizations and tree-knocking. That suggests to me that if true, these animals live in a population density that would warrant all of that stuff being done. Even if these forms of proposed communication are passive, it still indicates a meaningful density of individuals. Why can't they be confirmed to exist?

 

[Teresa.Hall]

No offense intended, but I'm not convinced even slightly by your arguments.

How would you know Patty's breasts don't move correctly. According to what? What do you have to compare them to? If her pecs were solid muscle, like say on a female body builder with big breasts, they wouldn't be doing a whole lotta swinging, even when she turns. Do a little investigating and you'll find that I'm right.

Breast tissue isn't made up of muscle. The muscle is below the breast tissue. Female body builders who are committed to their building don't have a lot of breast tissue (see pics)

The ones who do have large breasts generally have breast implants because the breast tissue has become minimal.

Pads can jiggle? What exactly were these "pads" made of? Luminous

Water or sand was widely available back then.

This is not my attempt at debunking the PG film because I find it compelling. I just wanted to say your reasoning isn't the only one.

 

[kitakaze]

There is enough evidence going back centuries to indicate there is a degree of probability or at the very least possibility that the creatures exist.

Like alien visitors? Can you argue that the comparison isn't apt?

You say that no matter what the 'scoftics' say there is good evidence. What is this good evidence? If not us, don't you think there are some people lurking who are not 'scoftics' who'd like to know?

 

[kitakaze]

Breast tissue isn't made up of muscle. The muscle is below the breast tissue. Female body builders who are committed to their building don't have a lot of breast tissue (see pics)

Mine's better:

 

[drapier]

There are reports of BF fighting and even killing each other. I remember reading one story that told of a witnessed fight to the death between two males. The victor then plunged its hand into the chest of the loser and pulled out the heart. It raised this up to the sky and roared. I can't remember if it ate the heart.

Was "Ride of the Valkyries" playing in the background?

Another opportunity to collect some bigfoot parts or at least some DNA lost. I'd like to read more about this clash of the titans if you have a source.

I'm not as well read on the subject as you are, William, but the only bigfoot report that I recall that involved conflict between two bigfeet also happens to be my favorite report. I read it 3 or 4 years ago, maybe at BFRO. Seems like this hunter in Alaska or Minnesota or one of those other cold states goes out hunting one day in the mid-1960s and he sees these three large creatures. It turns out that one of them is a female and the two others are potential suitors. The two Galahads have a bit of scuffle -- some posturing, maybe a punch or two were thrown (my memory gets a bit hazy at this point in the story), nothing as dramatic as in your story. One of the fellows recognizes that he is out-manned and retreats a space while the lady and the victor ... (well, let's just say I'd start blushing if I recounted what happened next).

All the while this is going on, the hunter has a bead on his prey, yet can't fire off a shot. Apparently he's transfixed by the rare sight he's witnessing. After the deed was done and the animals left the scene of their contest, the hunter returned home without his prize. Was he a sadder but wiser man as a result? The story doesn't say, but I like to think he was.

The funny thing about it all is that at the time of the events the hunter did not realize he was witnessing a drama involving three bigfeet. It was only after some 30 or 40 years of sober reflection that he understood the full significance of what he saw -- one of the rarest of scenes in the life of one of the rarest of animals on earth.

I've searched for this account in order to read it again (I may have gotten some of the details wrong), but I can't find it. If anyone knows where I can find this report, I'd greatly appreciate it if you can direct me to the source once again.

 

[William Parcher]

As I said, your sarcasm is useless (it's not scary or terrifying either). If it makes you feel good fine, but personally I prefer a logically structured argument. Can you restate your point without resorting to ridicule? In fact, what is your point?

To each his own. I don't shy from logical arguments, but if I can't have some fun as a BF skeptic I won't much want to even do it. I was trying to say that sarcasm won't stop a confirmation and subsequent classification of Bigfoot. I guess it could be so distasteful to some that they stop posting here or on a pro-BF forum. But writing (talking) about BF anywhere cannot ever be a proxy for the animal itself. I sometimes think that Bigfooters think that if they can create a convincing argument, it's just as good as the animal itself.

But it is the colorful personalities on both sides of the fence that make it worth spending time and energy if for no other reason than selfish intrigue. The BF threads here on JREF would be a lot more dry and boring if it weren't for the proponents acting like they do, and vice-versa.

If you look at the history of Bigfootery you see almost nothing but large and colorful personalities. That's cool no matter what you think about Bigfoot. In April of 1968, National Wildlife Magazine wrote that Roger Patterson was getting testy and tired of getting hundreds of skeptical questions (from BF believers and disbelievers) and was sensitive about the "careless use of the word liar". That is precious and priceless stuff. Well, back in 1968 you had to pay about 75 cents to buy the issue and read it. Now it's all free on Al Gore's Internet.

 

[William Parcher]

Personally, I think the still with the "perfect" foot is probably doctored.

I agree, and say the same about the right hand shown in the frame 352 Dahinden Cibachrome.

 

[tube]

Wow, huge thread. And wow, venom.

Look, obviously there are a lot of skeptics here who just scoff at stuff as a default, especially when that stuff is blurry and/or jpeg'd all to hell. When there's good supporting evidence, most of them will accept it, but like every forum there are some pigheaded folks who aren't prepared to back down and one or two people who for whatever reason just won't buy it, like in the case of the exotic big cat photo.

But you are overreaching by a country mile to say that people who don't see detailed realistic anatomy in this film are lying or fooling themselves. This poor beast's fur doesn't even lie naturally enough to see detailed musculature if it had any. The clearest anatomical detail I can see is a v shaped area at the top of the thigh that looks like the end of a suit's torso shell. The butt does not move like a real butt. A real butt, no matter the anatomy or gait, has muscles in it that start way down on the femur.

I'm an animator, I went to college for it and everything, I spent four years studying all kinds of musculatures and the way things move.

Skeptics can be wrong, sure, they can be bandwagoners, yes, but all that smugness comes from usually being right, and when they say it looks a whole lot like a decent suit rented from a good effects artist in the 60's, they are right.

VERY interesting stuff, thank you for your input.

The following is a transcription of Stan Winston's commentary on the Patterson film at the end of the Sasquatch Odyssey DVD.

"I'm Stan Winston and I create characters and creatures for film. We've worked on many films ranging from the Terminator, Aliens, Jurassic Park, Predator, Congo, etc.

OK, well basically it's walking like a man. Basically there is no structure other than the length of bone, the length of arm, the length of leg. Same as that of a human, and there is no structure to the form of the hair. It's a guy in a bad hair suit. Sorry.

For a few hundred dollars, they could have done this, for under a thousand dollars in that day they probably could have had this suit made.

If one of my colleagues created this for a movie he'd be out of business."

 

[SweatyYeti]

Like alien visitors? Can you argue that the comparison isn't apt?

You say that no matter what the 'scoftics' say there is good evidence. What is this good evidence? If not us, don't you think there are some people lurking who are not 'scoftics' who'd like to know?

Anybody want to take a guess as to where these ruins of a building were found....

 

[tube]

The commentary of Janos Prohaska is widely quoted by Bigfoot advocates, including Jeff Meldrum on pages 157 and 158 of his book.

With regards to Prohaska, Winston again comments on Sasquatch Odyssey:

"There was a gentleman, Janos Prohaska I believe his name was, he was known for ape suits and creating ape suits before 1967, and technically his suits were far beyond what we're seeing here."

 

[William Parcher]

Was "Ride of the Valkyries" playing in the background?

Never get out of the boat!

Another opportunity to collect some bigfoot parts or at least some DNA lost. I'd like to read more about this clash of the titans if you have a source.

Like you, I can't remember where I read it. It could have been a BFRO report or one posted on BFF. All I know is that I read it on the web. There was another eyewitness report from Russia that I posted here. Dude came upon a secluded meadow and saw two female Bigfoots (or whatever Russians call them) sprawled out sleeping in the sunshine. He lingered and absorbed this rare view of nature and later shared the experience with the world. According to him, he just watched unnoticed and then left to go back to the human rat race. I don't recall anyone on any BF forum saying that he probably made up the story. Believers are often not very skeptical. Of course if Bigfoot does exist, these things ought to occur from time to time.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yes you can clearly see the moving thumb. There is nothing unclear about it. And yes I would have seen it even if you had not pointed it out. It's VERY clear. Your blatant denial of what is clear to see smacks of the dishonesty I warned about. Major Red flag.

What in the world are you talking about, Luminous?
Who said they didn't see what you are calling a thumb?
I brought it up and posted the vid for crying out loud!

I see it, it's not clear to me, and I don't think it's a thumb.

This is called a disagreement. It happens all the time. No red flags necessary. Not everyone sees things the same way.

 

[LTC8K6]

The argument seems to be that if I don't see exactly what Sweaty and Luminous see, the way that they see it, I am blind and in denial.

In fact, I have never said I don't see what either of them see. I have only disagreed about what it is or what it means.

Perhaps I need to start writing down a list of believer tactics?

Now, I put Huntster and Lu on ignore for a long time, but neither of them attacked me simply for seeing things differently than they did as far as I can remember.

 

[William Parcher]

What in the world are you talking about, Luminous?
Who said they didn't see what you are calling a thumb?
I brought it up and posted the vid for crying out loud!

I see it, it's not clear to me, and I don't think it's a thumb.

This is called a disagreement. It happens all the time. No red flags necessary. Not everyone sees things the same way.

A red circle would be appreciated. I think you guys are talking about the cheap a simp video clip. At what point (seconds in time) are we supposed to see a thumb touching fingers?

 

[LTC8K6]

At what point (seconds in time) are we supposed to see a thumb touching fingers?

:26-:30, WP.

Amazing how a blind man can tell you that...

 

[TjW]

There are reports of BF fighting and even killing each other. I remember reading one story that told of a witnessed fight to the death between two males. The victor then plunged its hand into the chest of the loser and pulled out the heart. It raised this up to the sky and roared. I can't remember if it ate the heart.

Many Bigfooters theorize that they are territorial, or at least the males are. They believe territories are physically marked and also indicated with vocalizations and tree-knocking. That suggests to me that if true, these animals live in a population density that would warrant all of that stuff being done. Even if these forms of proposed communication are passive, it still indicates a meaningful density of individuals. Why can't they be confirmed to exist?

Let's get to the interesting part: what was the excuse for not grabbing some sort of specimen from the dead body?

 

[William Parcher]

:26-:30, WP. Amazing how a blind man can tell you that...

Good Lord. I thought for sure it had to be from a different point in the clip. The cropped and very blurry bits with the stumpy hand look like a pot of boiling crude oil attached to the forearm. Cheap a simp.

Let's get to the interesting part: what was the excuse for not grabbing some sort of specimen from the dead body?

I could write an essay on your question, but I won't. I'll summarize by saying that in general Bigfooters don't care about this stuff or excuses about inabilities to confirm the creature. Bigfoot just is, and folks have seen it. Won't you just accept that? You got some kind of problem, sir?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

No offense intended, but I'm not convinced even slightly by your arguments.

.......................

Thanks for sharing,

Luminous

Did you actually do any further research before you decided my points were without merit ?

You accuse the skeptics of dismissing things out of hand .. Pot meet kettle ..

What about how weight affects footprint depth ?

Here is something for you to look at..

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=17981&hl=weight

There are no ' clear ' pictures of fingers or thumbs in the PGF . The media simply does not support that level of detail . The detail you see is, what you choose to see. ..

The bending fingers shots are from when the camera was closest to the subject .. If we could see finger detail, it would be there..

What difference does it make what the pads ( if they are pads ) were made of ?

Why would you think there was no padding material that would jiggle in 1967 ?

It is absurd for you to continue with the assertion that what we see in this film is beyond the easily available technology of 1967 .. That is a Footer straw man that was burned long before you showed up.. We have been discussing this for almost two years ..

You would have done better to come in here a' la Beckjord and claim Patty is a shape-shifter .. For that, we have no counter argument...

 

[Aepervius]

Anybody want to take a guess as to where these ruins of a building were found....

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/ruins1a.jpg[/qimg]

I could hazard a guess . The Moon ? Mars ?

I can imagine a LOOOOT of explanation for this , but the most simply is this : there are formation in the desert which were thougth to be ruin but were random stone. There were formation in the atlantic ocean (near cuba?) which were thougth to be ruin with stone-cut trace on them, but they are only natural formation. I could go on.

My best guess : paradolia. Those aren't ruins, just stones randomly aranged.


But then again those could also very well be ruin not far away from london. Without context it could be anything....

 

[kitakaze]

(see pics)
[qimg]http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:2vaVyg8-1XOWcM:http://media1.guzer.com/pictures/funny_muscle_lady.jpg[/qimg]

Mine's better:

[qimg]http://media1.guzer.com/pictures/funny_muscle_lady.jpg[/qimg]

I'm ashamed... All my base are belong to Teresa. She controls the cheap a simp. I did a 10 point face-plant. I didn't even look at her collection of lovelies and said mine was better when her first lovely was mine. If someone could partially quote me I think this might give bigfoot ten or eleven more reality points. That said, I find her collection of photos to be ribald and salacious.