Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Luminous]

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

I'm trying to get out of reading all these. If you don't mind, could you save me the trouble of reading them all by telling me one thing: Do they all differ?

 

[TjW]

Diogenes wrote:


Gee, Greg, I don't know.

What are your thoughts on the anomalous objects in the pictures I posted?

The whole point of the pictures I posted is simply that they are evidence of alien life...in one form or another, though not proof.
The anomalies in those images are extremely anomalous, and thereby create some "degree of probability" that they are not geologic in origin.
The inability of the skeptics here to produce pictures of comparable "geology" on Earth will eventually support that claim.
There's much more on Mars that's anomalous, too....and anyone who's interested can find it all on the net easily enough.

I think this will be as far as I'll go with this conversation.
I have no reason to get into any more "debate" with people who respond mainly with personal insults, rather than comments on the content of the posts.
That's one of the reasons why I've avoided posting here for a long time.

This is a Skeptical Sewer, that's for sure!

I thought an anomaly was data that didn't fit in with other known facts. Only someone who was completely ignorant of geology could call those features anomalous. With no facts, how can there be an anomaly? When it fits into known facts, how can it be an anomaly?
Now, the first time someone came across a regular geometric geologic structure, that might have been an anomaly. If it can be shown that all of the currently-known mechanisms for creating regular geologic structures can be ruled out, then you'd have an anomaly. But arguing from ignorance doesn't make it anomalous.

Oh, and just so you can maintain your prejudices, your mother dresses you funny.

 

[LAL]

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?

Evidently the BBC lost most of the second roll.

John Green wasn't involved in the making of the film and he's still alive. He has a first generation copy and was present when it was shown in DeAtley's house. I don't know what you'd mean by vested interest. He's 80 this year, feisty as ever, and gains nothing from the film.

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.

You see the relevant portion. You can see the portions with the pack horse being led and of Roger casting prints in the 1971 documentary Bigfoot:Man or Beast? with Robert Morgan. There are stills on Chris Murphy's Murphy File on the Hancock House webpage.

You might be interested in Jeff Meldrum's presentation here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHrn4nru6iY&NR=1

 

[tube]

I just finished reading chapter six of Joel Hardin's book Tracker, which is entitled "Tracks of Bigfoot".

The chapter covers his on scene investigation of tracks in the Mill Creek watershed near Walla Walla Washington in June 1982. I believe his conclusions have been summarized elsewhere, but the particular details are interesting.

One paragraph on page 132 is telling:

"I finished the cut and then re-cut a few areas. I was positive that this area would have shown any tracks going through it - in fact there were several small animal prints visible - but Mr. Bigfoot had not ventured this way. Nothing as large as a fox could have come through there in the several weeks previously without leaving obvious prints in the vegetation. When I finished the sign cutting, I again stood at the spot I'd left my shirt. I'd made a complete circle and found no sign larger than that of a deer entering or exiting the area from any point. All of the prints that this particular Bigfoot had made were contained within that small section. I counted the prints again: eight, well possibly nine, counting the scuff marks on the trail. If a Sasquatch had made these prints, it would have to have floated in, hit the ground walking for eight or nine steps, then floated away again."

Page 140 contains comments specifically about Paul Freeman:

"Several times between the 1982 sighting in the Mill Creek watershed and 1994, Paul Freeman was involved in other Bigfoot sightings, including on in which he reported having seen a family of the creatures, including a male, female and offspring. Local sheriff's deputies, searching the scene of the sighting, discredited this report and confronted Freeman. He admitted to authorities that he had not only made up the story but had constructed some "feet" to make tracks as evidence to validate his sighting and had done so in previous events."

"Rene' Dahinden died in 2000 and Grover Krantz died in 2002, having never resolved their argument regarding the Freeman Blue Mountain sighting."

"These episodes created for me a whole new awareness of the Bigfoot phenomena. I still haven't seen Bigfoot footprints that I believed were real, though I have to date looked at a number of very, very good hoaxes. Universal Tracking Services was contacted by Peter Byrne of the Bigfoot Research Project in Hood River, Oregon. This was a research group funded by the Academy of Applied Sciences to locate and secure evidence of the existence of such creatures in the areas where reported sightings were most numerous. I, in company with other UTS instructors, accompanied research personnel on several excursions to look for and examine prints found at reported sightings. This research project ended in 1998 without finding evidence of the existence of Sasquatch or validity to any alleged Bigfoot footprints or any reported sighting of the creature."

 

[mangler]

I guess that would be why so many bigfooters (particularly one who shall remain unnamed) were disappointed with Hardin's book.

Been there, done that.

m

 

[afree87]

Yes, they mention the cripple stepping on a stick, and the stick hitting it in the leg. It has to be this Marx video which was considered authentic by John Green and others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs7xmVBOftQ

It was eventually exposed, but not because the suit was poor.

I was rather convinced by PGF until I saw this video. Looks like he bought the suit from the same manufacturer. It's the feet that stand out-- that pearly white which I've never seen on a real gorilla.

Now we just need to find the mystery supplier who made such a pretty-looking suit.

 

[Luminous]

The Patty Costume

Would someone out there who has read Long's book be kind enough to help a proponent to think like a skeptic for a day?

I don't have Longs book, but I'm trying to look at the P/G film from a skeptic's point of view. I've been watching the Patty film on LMS, trying to figure out how a "suit" like that could be created, and how it was made to cling so tightly to the body of the "wearer."

Here are a few questions:

How many pieces was this costume supposed to be made of? How were the pieces coupled together so securely? And how was the "cloth" made to cling so tightly to BH's arms, legs and torso? Did someone here mention hip waders? Why were those used?

Also, were foam inserts used to simulate the appearance of every major muscle group, both front and back, including the arms and legs?

How were zippers or clasps hidden from view with such short hair?

Has anyone ever sketched a likeness of each part of this suit?

Was it a rented gorilla suit, or was it made of horse hide?

How did they get the hair to be so uniform in color?

I'm curious about the "feet" and "gloves," what were they made of and how were they secured to the costume?

Again, I'm a Patty proponent. But I want to test the stability of my beliefs by looking at P/G footage from the other side of the aisle. The one thing that baffles me is the unusual length of both the upper and lower arms.

Would somebody be willing to help me out by answering some of these questions, and also by adding their personal insights about this "suit" from a skeptical point of view? I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks in advance,

Luminous

 

[carcharodon]

I was rather convinced by PGF until I saw this video. Looks like he bought the suit from the same manufacturer. It's the feet that stand out-- that pearly white which I've never seen on a real gorilla.

Yet another naive comment. The feet of the P/G subject are not 'pearly white' but are in fact the same colour and same tone as the substrate upon which it walked....i.e a bluish grey. The subject was first encountered right by a stream. It's pretty logical to conclude the loose silty top particles simply clung to the wet feet on the subject, like sand does when we are on the beach and have wet feet then go stomping off to find our towels.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Wait, are you actually going to argue that both videos show a bigfoot?

 

[carcharodon]

I wasn't suggesting you do it right away .. Just pick a new page from time to time and look around. We are not going anywhere ...

What do you think is a logical explanation for Patterson ( or Gimlin, (Laverty, Titmus ( supposed expert tracker ? )) not putting more effort into tracking down Patty and her friends, and reaping the money and fame it would bring ?

Well Gimlin hardly got anything out of the original expedition EVEN THOUGH THEY CAUGHT IT ON FILM so why bother with another one? Titmus had been trying to find them for years anyway. He was later found on the Bossburg hunt....then he moved to British Columbia. Laverty doesn't seem to have been all that bothered one way or the other. He'd heard the stories for years already. As for Patterson, well he thought what he already had was good enough. Patterson was quite convinced these creatures were in various places in the PNW, not just Bluff Creek and he usually went to a certain area after a period of recent activity. That's the reason he went to northern California in the first place....because of the tracks Green and Dahinden saw a short time before while he was searching out in Washington. Just becuase Patterson caught one on film at Bluff Creek I see no particular reason why he would have thought that was the only place to look for them. If there was not much further reported activity around Bluff Creek then why go back? Why not go somewhere else a little closer to home......like Bossburg....which he did.

That Patterson didn't have any funds, is not a very good reason .. He managed for years to pursue his hobby and schemes, by sponging off of others ..

The reason is in the above paragraph. You just aren't reading. Patterson's methods have been explained to you before.

 

[carcharodon]

Wait, are you actually going to argue that both videos show a bigfoot?

Er no. The Marx video clearly shows a crappy bigfoot costume, not much worse than the crappy bigfoot costumes used in The Six Million Dollar Man, Snowbeast, Bigfoot and The Hendersons and X-Creatures years later.

The Patterson/Gimlin footage taken in 1967 doesn't show what looks like a crappy bigfoot costume.

 

[carcharodon]

However the right foot of the actor in that youtube video looks like the cripplefoot track to me.

I don't know what you are looking at but the fake foot on the fake suit the actor is wearing in that footage DOESN'T look like it would be 17 inches long. That would make the actor about 9 ft tall or more.

His fake criple foot does not look particularly long and certainly not 17 inches.

 

[carcharodon]

Sigh....and I'm still waiting to be shown these bigfoot suits that look every bit as good as what we see in the P/G footage. If the technology that Patterson supposedly used in '67 was around at the time then why was it not employed in all the famous bigfoot suits made after the P/G footage????? Why do all these bigfoot suits from the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s look and move shoddy in comparison?

I've shown you the Six Million Dollar Man bigfoot suit, as worn by Andre the Giant. I've shown you the Snowbeast suit. I've shown you the Baker Harry suit. I've shown you the X-Creatures suit. If I had the stills I could show you many many other suits from the likes of Boggy Creek, Black Lake, Unforgettable Encounter and various bigfoot documentaries not to mention a multitude of hoaxes. Now how about somebody showing me just one bigfoot suit that even approaches what we see in the P/G footage??????

You scoftics would even try and argue that this looks every bit as good as the P/G footage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyxJFXIzAEY&mode=related&search=

 

[carcharodon]

I just finished reading chapter six of Joel Hardin's book Tracker, which is entitled "Tracks of Bigfoot"....................................

Here, both Roger Knights and Rick Noll make some interesting observations about Joel Hardin's book.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=19087&st=50&start=50

And if we are going to bring up reknowned trackers/hunters then conversely how about the famous Clayton Mack?

http://www.rense.com/ufo3/bigfootinbc.htm

 

[Kenny 10 Bellys]

This thread is so circular it's getting dizzy!

It all boils down to opinions, doesn't it? Do I trust this guys skills, did that guy do it for the money, did such and such appear quite earnest, I think I can see this detail in the film, etc, etc? The reason it's all based on opinion is because there's no Bigfoot as such. No bigfoot, no conclusive proof. Find the animal and shut everyone up.

 

[kitakaze]

Lyndon, simple question. How many times have I reported you?

Breakdowns?? No, that's the real me. It's normal typical behaviour when addressing somebody of your calibre and fibre. I would react exactly the same to a no mark like you in real life. If fact, I'd most likely do more than that.

Yeaah, hit it with your purse, Alice. I think it's hilarious when you try and act intimidating. You're about as threatening as a slight breeze. I guess restraining the tough guy complex is not an option.

Tries to be:

Invariably ends up:

BTW tough guy, got your story straight, yet?

 

[carcharodon]

Hey Snitch, instead of continuously posting irrelevant 'side splitting' stills from movies or cartoons that have nothing to do with the subject of this thread, do you think you could actually try for once in your life to post something constructive here??????

How about you posting some stills of these bigfoot costumes that supposedly have the same kind of technology that we see in the P/G footage? How about you post some still of bigfoot suits period? Then we can compare them to the P/G footage. Come on. There has been a PLETHORA of them since '67. I've already posted quite a few. You post an image of Michael Caine and Gollum in reply.

And you call Sweaty Yeti a troll??

Laugh me ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ arse off.

 

[kitakaze]

Just for Sweaty:

A nice big one.

What an interesting angle.

Sweaty, I guess maybe you won't be interested in taking your woo woo alien civilization evidence claims and starting a new thread. Maybe I'll do it for you.

 

[carcharodon]

HOW CAN I TRUST YOU WHEN YOU'RE BLATANTLY DISHONEST?

That's Correa Neto all over. He still won't acknowledge the fact that he tried to ridicule and get one up over a poster that was already prevented from posting and distorting that poster's viewpoints in the process.

The fact that he refuses to even admit he was way out of line in trying to denegrate a poster who couldn't even reply to him is a mark of his dishonesty. Correa is in fact, nothing more than a side stepping pseudo intellectual who thinks he knows far far more than he actually does.

You rumbled his dishonesty pretty quickly though. Don't bother playing his game of 'prove it'. Even when you do prove it, he ignores it and pretends you haven't. He goes round and round in circles. He is a complete bore of the highest order. Most of his posts are yawn inducing too.

 

[LTC8K6]

Why would anyone, other than possibly Roger Patterson and Ray Wallace, have been making a sasquatch suit in the late 60's?