Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Correa Neto]

Marx seems to have made multiple filmings of Bigfoot. What we see in that YouTube clip doesn't match Byrne's description (three 10-second cuts, and BF walks under a tree), and may also not have been what Green & Dahinden saw that convinced them of authenticity.

These may be stills from what those three guys saw in 1971...

[qimg]http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/uploads/marx_bigfoot.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/marxbigfoot.jpg[/qimg]

Those pics...

The hair is quite short, eh?

How come, if the gorilla suits had long shaggy hair?

Must be the real deal, eh?

 

[Teresa.Hall]

I'm talking about the long run. Except for minimal lip service, none of the principles really invested any time and resources to go find the creature they caught on film...... ??

Perhaps they thought the film would suffice in elevating their fame and bank accounts?

Perhaps the goal was to prove to themselves bigfoot was a species and they documented it in film for the future?

If it was a hoax then there was no need to follow?

I could wax on with reasons but only two men know why they didn't pursue the subject of the film and one of them has passed on to the hereafter.

I'm not sure I've ever heard what the reason surrounding the events was...

 

[Luminous]

your interpretation are far from being enough for you to say I or anyone else am being dishonest because I do not agree with what you say

You implied that I consider someone dishonest if they simply disagree with what I say. That is not only untrue, it is dishonest because I have never said or implied such a thing. And your dishonesty continues as you blatantly dare me to "Prove it." Well, I just did.

This time I think the apology needs to come from you. That statement was subtle, devious and misleading, and it gives others a false impression of the kind of person I am.

 

[bruto]

This thread is so long and has gone for so long that I forget some details, and undoubtedly cover old territory again. But perhaps one of the advocates of the film (I'd be surprised if LU isn't on top of this) can refresh my memory: is there any person now living, who was not involved in the making of the film, or does not have a vested interest in supporting the authenticity of the film, who has actually seen either the entire uncut original two reels, or an entirely uncut copy? Is there any known copy of the entire two reels now in existence?

One thing it seems worth bearing in mind is that if this film is really genuine, a great deal of the doubt about its authenticity would be permanently put to rest if someone could come up with the entire two reels uncut and show it even to a small group of disinterested parties. Suspicion that the missing footage contained material that would give away fraud or show up anomalies in the story would forever be put to rest. It is hard not to be skeptical of the authenticity of the film when all we see is a carefully chosen portion of it.

 

[Luminous]

Sorry, double post...

 

[Luminous]

I'm talking about the long run. Except for minimal lip service, none of the principles really invested any time and resources to go find the creature they caught on film...... ??

Okay, that makes sense. I misunderstood you. That is an interesting point. Why didn't they go back with more people for an expedition to get more footage of the creature?

I think Roger went to show off his footage, probably hoping that someone would fund such an expedition. I'm not positive on that. I'll have to do some research and get back to you.

 

[Correa Neto]

I will say this about the Patterson Gimlin footage. I find it compelling. I don't have any facts or figures. I have nothing to add to what's already been said pro or con. It is what it is. Like everything else that's come down the pipe in the last forty years it's not going to prove the existence of a bigfoot animal and I don't have any problems with anyone who thinks differently than I do about it. What I believe isn't important it's what I can prove and that's precious little.

Like Rene Dahinden once said "Something's making those g*dd*mned tracks!" Either a lot of people have a lot of time on their hands and a need to fake some tracks, or something's actually tracking up North America. I just wish they didn't have so many different variables of toes. three, four, five? If people are hoaxing tracks I wish they'd get together and decide once and for all how many toes there's going to be. If there are real animals making tracks with different amounts of toes we have a lot more looking to do.

Teresa, if there were more like you, the skeptics/proponent dialogues would be much easier.

Sure, chances are the threads would be quite smaller, since we would agree to disagree quite quickly. Some would find boring, since offense exchange would most likley be inexistent, and it seems some people are interested only in offending those who do not share their views. But there would be little if any bandwidth waste.

Dialogue is helpfull for both sides. Proponents can try to improve their methodologies and arguments. Skeptics might have some insights on the proponents' reasons. Even in the most likely outcome (no one changes positions) both sides win. Of course, eventually, who knows, maybe we skeptics find some reliable or compelling pieces of evidence and/or proponents become more critical of the data thats at their hands.

 

[kitakaze]

I'll do it Diogenes. It may take me a while, (I've got some issues to deal with on the homefront), but I'll skim the thead and view the links you provided. You have my word.

Luminous, I just wanted to let you know that you've sent some important posts my way and made some others that I want to comment on and that I won't leave them behind. Best of luck on the homefront.

 

[rgann]

The P/G story you linked to seems to differ a bit from what I was told. I'll have to check with my source on the conflict and get back to you.

Luminous:

Here are links to five first hand accounts (P&G) of what happened, comparisons are interesting.

Green/Gimlin Interview March 29, 1992.
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/john.htm

Ivan Sanderson Argosy Feb 1968
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/argosy68.htm

Tony Eberts The Province, British Columbia October 25, 1967
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/province2.htm

The Times-Standard EUREKA, CALIFORNIA,SATURDAY, OCT. 21, 1967
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/firstpgf.htm

Jack Webster Radio Interview Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin November, 1967
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/radiopatterson.htm

Rick

 

[kitakaze]

If I recall the scenario correctly, Gimlin got his shotgun out and went to go after the creature, but Patterson called him back because he feared that there may be others around, and he didn't want to be left alone. (It seems his horse had run off...) I also heard that they both tried to follow (on foot?) but the creature's prints went up a steep embankment so they turned back.

I'm not sure how accurate that is, but it's as close as I remember.

L, that's not the scenario as currently told. Do you also have a copy of Meldrum's book? That containing the scenario as currently sold... I mean told. If not I'll give the details in a proper response when I have more time to post.

 

[Correa Neto]

You implied that I consider someone dishonest if they simply disagree with what I say. That is not only untrue, it is dishonest because I have never said or implied such a thing. And your dishonesty continues as you blatantly dare me to "Prove it." Well, I just did.

This time I think the apology needs to come from you. That statement was subtle, devious and misleading, and it gives others a false impression of the kind of person I am.

Nope. You proved that so far you are following the trend, as predicted. Those were empty words, luminous, they have no substance.

You dodged multiple questions presented to you. You implied I have not provided evidence you asked for regarding the ages of the gorilla suits. More than once you tried to shift the burden of the evidence. Were these honest tactics? And now you dare calling me dishonest?

And you want me to apologize?

Check what you wrote here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2768071&postcount=5924
regarding intellectual dishonesty.

Check what I wrote before you called me dishonest. Enlighten me by showing where I was dishonest. Or just say "I'm sorry, it was the heat of the moment".

 

[LTC8K6]

Bruto, I think the answer to most of those is no.

As far as I know, we cannot see any of the original film at all.

What we are seeing are enlarged and enhanced copies of the film.

In the original film, Patty is small in the frame.

Like so:

http://home.nycap.rr.com/wwilliams/frame352.jpg

All of these film clips where Patty is taking up a large part of the frame, are blown up enhancements.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/fahrenbach.htm

Always keep in mind what you can't possibly see in the PGF.

 

[LTC8K6]

"On the other side of the creek, back up against the trees, there was a sort of man-creature that we estimated later, by measuring some logs that appear in the film, to have been about seven feet tall.

When did Roger and Bob go back to the spot at Bluff Creek to measure these logs they saw in the film?

 

[SweatyYeti]

I have a confession to make, folks.

My name is Drapier, and I am a troll enabler. I have tasted the sweet, sweet bait that the troll has extended to me, and let me tell you the bait tasted good. The headiness of my response, the feeling of vindication, the thought that maybe, just maybe, I've made a point that made a difference.

But, oh, the aftermath, the morning after, the self-recrimination!

I read this thread and see that my response may have encouraged others to follow the same iniquitous path that I followed.

I forsake my ways!

May that paranormal Bigfoot in the sky, or in the forests, or on the rocky, barren plains of Mars grant that others may learn from my sorrow.

A thing grows upon what it feeds.

And I have a confession to make to Father Kaze.

The toilet got plugged up....and I just left it there.

 

[Luminous]

Luminous, I just wanted to let you know that you've sent some important posts my way and made some others that I want to comment on and that I won't leave them behind. Best of luck on the homefront.

Thanks Kitakaze, I appreciate how you've received me. I hope we can do some quality debating soon. I'm looking forward to it!

 

[Luminous]

L, that's not the scenario as currently told. Do you also have a copy of Meldrum's book? That containing the scenario as currently sold... I mean told. If not I'll give the details in a proper response when I have more time to post.

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, Kit. I do have Meldrum's book but I haven't read it yet. My version, came from my memory, so it's most likely all screwed up!

Sold! I almost missed that! Naw, don't bother with it, (unless you want to) I'll just have to get off my lazy ass and read the book!

 

[LAL]

Lu, you are treated respectfully here. You know you get more than just respectful treatment from me.

That's true, and it always surprises me when I see you act differently with others. I'm glad you at least look into it, and I commend you for buying Dr.Meldrum's book.

But I haven't always been treated respectfully here, nor has the topic. The first thread I joined was subtitled, "Look what the hoaxers are up to now."

I must have missed most of the apologies.

 

[Luminous]

Nope. You proved that so far you are following the trend, as predicted. Those were empty words, luminous, they have no substance.

You dodged multiple questions presented to you. You implied I have not provided evidence you asked for regarding the ages of the gorilla suits. More than once you tried to shift the burden of the evidence. Were these honest tactics? And now you dare calling me dishonest?

And you want me to apologize?

Check what you wrote here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2768071&postcount=5924
regarding intellectual dishonesty.

Check what I wrote before you called me dishonest. Enlighten me by showing where I was dishonest. Or just say "I'm sorry, it was the heat of the moment".

I'm sorry, but you lost me here. What exactly are you trying to say to me? I don't remember dodging your questions. It's more likely that I didn't see them. (Typical for me). Would you kindly cut and paste what you what you want me to read. I'm exhausted and my eyes are stinging. That was a fairly long post, and I'm trying to find what you're saying, but I'm starting to get cross-eyed. Would you please simplify this for me and briefly summarize your point? It has been a long day, and this is wearing me out. I'd really appreciate it if you would.

Luminous

 

[LAL]

Now off you go to reach for that report button for improper usage of the word 'twatness'.

Ah, yes. I looked that one up. It does, in effect, mean "twitness". It's perfectly acceptable British slang term and doesn't mean what some ignorant colonials have thought it means.

Shows where their minds are.

Carcharodon, you've always been respectful to me.