Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[carcharodon]

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

Forget the late 60s. What about the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s???? They should have been BETTER by then.

They weren't.

 

[LTC8K6]

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

If we knew all that, none of us would be here.

We would also likely argue with many of your assertions, such as the idea that the pieces were all that secure, that they are clinging that tightly, that they show muscle groups, the short hair, and the uniform color of the hair.

It was bold of you to try to get them past us as if they were factual, though.

Keep in mind that LMS is an enhanced and enlarged version of the PGF.

Patty may not be nearly as impressive if you could see the original PGF.

 

[kitakaze]

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.

Interesting how you don't answer the first question. Truthfully answering 'once' isn't compatible with your 'as per usual' BS, I guess. Why do you dishonestly portray it otherwise?

Also, explain why it's necessary for me to post images of bigfoot costumes that match the PGF?

I'm not surprised you don't like a post with a link that shows you grabbing the dunce hat on the PGF.

Tell you what, I'll spot you, just don't sidestep it. Let's say the PGF is no suit. Why no better images in the 40 years since of this beast that apparently roams the continent from sea to shining sea? Forget proof, just some reliable evidence. You know the difference, it's been given many times. You strongly state that there is good evidence but turtle and give lame excuses when asked for it. There are people watching who want to know besides us big nasty skeptics. Doesn't sound like you have much confidence in your very good evidence. Go right ahead, cough up another lame excuse why you won't provide substantiation for your claims. Also, maybe you can show us one single post of a regualar member here dismissing out of hand the possibility of bigfoot existence so you can justify the 'scoftic' label. Just try not to cop out and say 'it's everywhere here for everyone to see'.

 

[LTC8K6]

They should have been BETTER by then.

Why? Gorilla suits hadn't gotten any better by then, and bigfoot remains largely a joke.

Can a man in a gorilla suit pass as a gorilla even today?

Yes, it's a bit harder with a gorilla, because we know exactly how a gorilla looks, behaves, and moves, and what tracks it leaves.

 

[kitakaze]

If there we obvious zippers or something like that, I might say, Hmmmm.

If there were obvious zippers I'd say 'next'.

Ha ha, just a little gentle ribbing there, Luminous. I'm sure you didn't mean that if you saw an obvious sign of hoaxing you might consider it.

 

[Teresa.Hall]

Luminous, it is commendable of you to test your beliefs by objectively discussing the issues, both pro and con. I think it's important to hear both sides of an issue in order to have the best information possible with which to base a conclusion.

 

[carcharodon]

Interesting how you don't answer the first question.

You knew the answer to the first question so why did you need the answer when you already knew it? Should I play every stupid troll game of yours that you like to initiate???

You reported me once more than you should have, particularly as you displayed the same kind of behaviour yourself. It's not the reporting that was the issue but the fact that you do and have done the very same thing you reported me for. I wouldn't mind if Mother Teresa reported me, but YOU!???????

LOL.

Also, explain why it's necessary for me to post images of bigfoot costumes that match the PGF?

Who said anything about 'matching'? Not lying and misquoting me again are you? I said why don't you post some stills that show the 'same kind of technology' that we see in the P/G footage??? I also said why don't you post stills of bigfoot suits period then we can compare them to the P/G footage.

I'm not surprised you don't like a post with a link that shows you grabbing the dunce hat on the PGF.

WTF????

Tell you what, I'll spot you, just don't sidestep it. Let's say the PGF is no suit. Why no better images in the 40 years since of this beast that apparently roams the continent from sea to shining sea?

Patterson was probably in a unique position that hasn't been replicated since.

1. He was in a specific area for considerable time beforehand.

2. Daily searching on horseback and not on foot. The horses (hoofed animals) might well have overode the presence of humans to the sasquatch.

3. A downfall logpile obscured Patterson and Gimlin from the saquatch until right at the last minute when they rounded it.

4. The running steam at the squatch's feet might have muffled other sounds to the sasquatch. Her ears were close to it seeing as she was squating at the time.

5. The sasquatch was caught out in the open and not in dense wood where it could dissapear behind the first tree in 2 seconds before even the camera was out of it's bag.

There ya go. Pretty logical reasons.

And I'm not altogether convinced that sasquatch inhabits the 'continent from sea to shining sea' so that's your other argument dealt with.

Forget proof, just some reliable evidence. You know the difference, it's been given many times. You strongly state that there is good evidence but turtle and give lame excuses when asked for it.

It's been given. We are even talking about a piece of good evidence right now. The P/G footage.

There are people watching who want to know besides us big nasty skeptics. Doesn't sound like you have much confidence in your very good evidence. Go right ahead, cough up another lame excuse why you won't provide substantiation for your claims. Also, maybe you can show us one single post of a regualar member here dismissing out of hand the possibility of bigfoot existence so you can justify the 'scoftic' label. Just try not to cop out and say 'it's everywhere here for everyone to see'.

It's everywhere here for everyone to see.

 

[LTC8K6]

If you still hold open the possibility, even if tiny, that the PGF is a man in a suit, then how can you rely on it as being an example of a real sasquatch?

 

[carcharodon]

Tell you what, I'll spot you, just don't sidestep it. Let's say the PGF is no suit. Why no better images in the 40 years since of this beast that apparently roams the continent from sea to shining sea? Forget proof, just some reliable evidence.

Seeing as how I have just answered the above question, why don't you answer it conversely?

If the P/G footage is a hoax, then why no other hoaxes in the 40 years since that can match it, much less better it? New hoaxes appear almost weekly on You Tube so nobody can say people aren't trying. Even Penn and Teller tried their own bigfoot hoax which was sorely lacking compared to the P/G footage.

Why nothing as good as the P/G 'hoax' in 40 years?????

 

[carcharodon]

If you still hold open the possibility, even if tiny, that the PGF is a man in a suit, then how can you rely on it as being an example of a real sasquatch?

I don't entertain the possibility it's a man in a suit. I'm 100% convinced it's a real sasquatch. I'm big enough to say so and I don't sit on the fence. Never have.

If some of my replies might give you the impression I am not totally convinced of the authenticity of the P/G footage than that isn't intentional and it's just wording for arguments sake.

Why? Gorilla suits hadn't gotten any better by then,

Yes they had. Gorilla suits had gotten better from the late 1960s to the 1980s. Watch Greystoke (1984). The gorilla suits in that were far better than anything in the 1960s.

and bigfoot remains largely a joke.

That doesn't negate the fact that there have been many many attemps to make bigfoot suits....for movies, documentaries, commercials and hoaxes.....and none that have come anywhere close to what we see in the P/G footage.

Can a man in a gorilla suit pass as a gorilla even today?
Yes, it's a bit harder with a gorilla, because we know exactly how a gorilla looks, behaves, and moves, and what tracks it leaves.

I've never seen any bigfoot suit that looks and most importantly moves remotely convincing.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

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?

Yes, in one way or another .. Mostly minor details, but some rather large ..

One of the biggest is that Patterson claimed his horse fell on him, and he had a bent stirrup to prove it. Gimlin says most definitely, the horse did not fall.

Another big problem is how they got the film developed that night in order to view it the next day ..

Really luminous, you need to read this stuff yourself. We are not asking you to do it over night. We have been discussing this for over two years now.

If you are going to trust others to tell you our interpretation of all this information, why don't you just trust us when we assure you it is a hoax ?

You need to find a copy of Long's book. It is very badly written and painful to read, but it seems to contain a good deal of factual information that tells a lot about the kind of person Patterson was.

 

[Hellbound]

Seeing as how I have just answered the above question, why don't you answer it conversely?

If the P/G footage is a hoax, then why no other hoaxes in the 40 years since that can match it, much less better it? New hoaxes appear almost weekly on You Tube so nobody can say people aren't trying. Even Penn and Teller tried their own bigfoot hoax which was sorely lacking compared to the P/G footage.

Why nothing as good as the P/G 'hoax' in 40 years?????

I can field this one.

Because the ones that are "better" are good enough that they can easily be seen as hoaxes.

PGF's main "advantage", and the resaon it's hung around so long in Bigfoot lore, is precisely because it isn't "good" at all. It's a short, very grainy, unclear film, shot by two people who, by any argument, had a vested interest in finding bigfoot, with a story around it's capture that is, at best, inconsistent. The film and camera it was shot on didn't have enough resolution to catch things like hairs, or minute muscle movements that footers claim to see...the resolution limit was somewhere around an inch and a half, IIRC. The entire film is nothing more than a huge inkblot test.

A lot of things have come around as good or better than the PGF. The PGF is not "good" in any reasonable sense of the word. It's that very lack of quality that makes it hang around...there isn't enough detail and precision to clearly show the hoax, and most footers follow the "if you can't prove it isn't Bigfoot, it must be" line of fallacious reasoning.

 

[bruto]

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.


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

The Meldrum presentation will have to wait, I'm afraid (not at home, borrowed dialup connection).

I realize we'll probably always differ on this, and the term 'vested interest' was probably the wrong one. I meant to include people who do not already have a bias in favor of bigfoot's existence.

That you can be so sure that we see the "relevant" portions of the film is part of the problem. With a film as controversial as this every inch right up to the leaders and the scratches and the developers' labels is relevant. The loss of any part of it is unfortunate, to say the least. If someone could come up right now with the "irrelevant" portions, and if indeed they are just innocuous, irrelevant footage, it would not only put one doubt to rest, but also be a boost to the credibility of those who did the editing. Until then, anyone who has suspicion that the people who made the film were hoaxers will always have (I think, at least) a legitimate reason to ask "what might they have edited out?"

So did John Green see the entire, uncut two reels before any editing?

 

[LTC8K6]

If you allow others to hold open the possibility that the PGF is a man in a suit, then you can't argue that it's good evidence for sasquatch, imo.

Imo, the only way you can argue that the PGF is good evidence for the existence of sasquatch is if it's unreasonable to believe it might be a man in a suit.

 

[Luminous]

If there were obvious zippers I'd say 'next'.

Ha ha, just a little gentle ribbing there, Luminous. I'm sure you didn't mean that if you saw an obvious sign of hoaxing you might consider it.

No, I just have a zipper phobia. It takes 5 beautiful women to hold me down, and a sixth just to get my leather jacket zipped up!

 

[carcharodon]

Keep in mind that LMS is an enhanced and enlarged version of the PGF.

Don't you mean the LMS version is simply made clearer and bigger for us to look at? I don't think anything has been actually added. In fact, making the subject bigger and clearer would actually be to it's detriment. In the case of the P/G footage, that isn't so.

Patty may not be nearly as impressive if you could see the original PGF.

Well in the original PGF Patty is only about 1mm or 2mm tall so I make you right there.

 

[kitakaze]

You knew the answer to the first question so why did you need the answer when you already knew it? Should I play every stupid troll game of yours that you like to initiate???

Nice try but you lose. Why should I ask you to state the truth clearly? Why should I get the person who is misrepresenting the facts to state them clearly when I know the truth? Are you dense?

Very simply because you have a habit of distorting the truth to suit yourself. You consistently make mention of my reporting you in a way that makes it seem like it was not a single event. 'As per usual' are the words of someone who is not being truthful.

You reported me once more than you should have, particularly as you displayed the same kind of behaviour yourself. It's not the reporting that was the issue but the fact that you do and have done the very same thing you reported me for.

Find one single post where I do the same thing I reported you for. If it were now, I wouldn't feel it necessary to waste a mod's time with your fine entertainment but back then telling someone to 'shove it up their arse' seemed very innappropriate. You know what, though? In hindsight I completely agree with you that the person who reported you for posting the article did so very unnecessarily. I don't think that justifies the type of response you gave but again, were it now I wouldn't bother.

Who said anything about 'matching'? Not lying and misquoting me again are you? I said why don't you post some stills that show the 'same kind of technology' that we see in the P/G footage??? I also said why don't you post stills of bigfoot suits period then we can compare them to the P/G footage.

Explain why it's necessary for me to post images of bigfoot costumes that show the 'same kind of technology' that we see in the P/G footage.

WTF????

Says the footer that couldn't even get simple elements of the events at the time the film was taken correct.

Patterson was probably in a unique position that hasn't been replicated since.

1. He was in a specific area for considerable time beforehand.

2. Daily searching on horseback and not on foot. The horses (hoofed animals) might well have overode the presence of humans to the sasquatch.

3. A downfall logpile obscured Patterson and Gimlin from the saquatch until right at the last minute when they rounded it.

4. The running steam at the squatch's feet might have muffled other sounds to the sasquatch. Her ears were close to it seeing as she was squating at the time.

5. The sasquatch was caught out in the open and not in dense wood where it could dissapear behind the first tree in 2 seconds before even the camera was out of it's bag.

There ya go. Pretty logical reasons.

First of all, the area had been inhabited since early summer with no reports of rock-breasted hirsute wild women. As for the rest, your just reaching. Think about where and under what circumstances many of the reports are. As the phenomenom is being pushed by footers there's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't have some kind of reliable evidence, including some better images, from within the last 40 years.

And I'm not altogether convinced that sasquatch inhabits the 'continent from sea to shining sea' so that's your other argument dealt with.

Why ever would that be?

It's been given. We are even talking about a piece of good evidence right now. The P/G footage.

What we're talking about right now could either be a man in a suit or a sasquatch and under the circumstances being that there is no reliable evidence for sasquatches it is more likely to be a man in a suit. The PGF is not reliable evidence because discounting the possibility of a man in a suit can not reasonably be done.

It's everywhere here for everyone to see.

I knew you couldn't.

 

[RayG]

Well in the original PGF Patty is only about 1mm or 2mm tall so I make you right there.

Yes, according to Krantz (Big Footprints, page 93), "...at its closest, the figure stands only 1.66mm on the actual film, inside an area measuring 10mm wide by 7.5mm tall."

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere else that the subject was only about the size of one of the sprocket holes in the film, but I can't remember where I saw that. (I may be mistaken though).

carch, kit, why don't you two just get married? This might be someone's interpretation if they stumble upon your tit-for-tat....

c: 'poke'
k: "Mom, c poked me."
c: "No I didn't."
k: "Did so."
c: "Did not."
k: "Yes you did."
c: "No I didn't."
k: "Did so."
c: 'POKE'
k: "OW! What was that for?"
c: "You told mom."
k: "Well you poked me."
c: "Did not."
k: "Did so."
(continues thus until one of the parents has an embolism)

RayG

 

[carcharodon]

I can field this one.

Because the ones that are "better" are good enough that they can easily be seen as hoaxes.

A common misconception. In actual fact almost every hoax since the P/G footage shows the subject more obscure, further away, in woodland and not out in the open and for a shorter amount of time than the P/G footage. Even so, this is enough to write them all off almost instantly.

PGF's main "advantage", and the resaon it's hung around so long in Bigfoot lore, is precisely because it isn't "good" at all.

Actually it is in fact quite good. That's why it STILL causes controversy to this day. It was even shown on a recent BBC nature documentary and wasn't sniggered at.

It's a short,

It's longer than most hoaxes.

very grainy, unclear film,

Unlcear? It's actually clearer than most people think and when it's enlarged, cleaned up and stabilsed it's pretty good. Sure, we can't see what colour it's eyes are or how many teeth are showing but it's nowhere near as grainy and unclear as the pupular myth supposes. I have even heard some scoftics declare it to be 'blurred and out of focus'.

Regardless of the details the quality of the film is good enough to show us it's motion and how it moves, and it moves in a perfectly natural and fluid looking manner and not like a human in a bulky cumbersome suit with huge fake feet trying not to trip over.

shot by two people who, by any argument, had a vested interest in finding bigfoot,

Bob Gimlin didn't get much, if anything, out of this vested interest. In fact he and Patterson had a falling out, but Gimlin still didn't 'come clean' and spill the beans about a hoax. An often ignored major telling point by the scoftics.

with a story around it's capture that is, at best, inconsistent.

It's not inconsistent at all. In fact it's very consistent. The only minor inconsistencies (how Patterson came off his horse, the size of the creature) are perfectly natural discrepencies that happen when two witnesses are seeing an extraordinary event.

The film and camera it was shot on didn't have enough resolution to catch things like hairs, or minute muscle movements that footers claim to see...

Correction, 'some' footers.

the resolution limit was somewhere around an inch and a half, IIRC. The entire film is nothing more than a huge inkblot test.

Oh come off it. That's completele nonsense and bullcrap. With scoftics like you around is it any wonder these threads deteriorate???

A lot of things have come around as good or better than the PGF.

Such as what? Examples? Links??

The PGF is not "good" in any reasonable sense of the word. It's that very lack of quality that makes it hang around

LOL, is that why all these other pieces of footage and photographs that are even more obscure

...there isn't enough detail and precision to clearly show the hoax,

It's clear enough to compare to any other bigfoot suit ever made, both in it's appearance and it's locomotion. I can clearly see, for example that the head of the P/G subject DOES NOT have the huge oversized head that all these other bigfoot suits have to employ so the actor's head can fit inside the fake head. I can clearly see that it's torso breadth and shoulder width with long freely swinging arms has not been recreated in any other bigfoot suit.

You obviously just aren't looking.

and most footers follow the "if you can't prove it isn't Bigfoot, it must be" line of fallacious reasoning.

Well as much as the proponets are told to 'prove there's a bigfoot, give us a body' then the onus regarding the P/G footage is also on the scoftics to prove its a hoax...or at least give us some good evidence.

 

[Teresa.Hall]

Minor correction...

4. The running steam at the squatch's feet might have muffled other sounds to the sasquatch. Her ears were close to it seeing as she was squating at the time.

From John Green's interview with Bob Gimlin:

Green: Did you come around a corner or did you see it from a distance or…?

Gimlin: No, it wasn't exactly a corner. We came around a bend. We were riding the creek beds, is what we were doing and so when we came around the bend in the creek; this thing was standing alongside the creek. Stand upright.

Green: So it was standing when you first saw it?

Gimlin: It was standing still, right at the edge of the creek when we first saw it, yes.

Green: Right at the edge?

Gimlin: Right by the edge of the creek, yes.

Green: But fully upright?

Gimlin: Fully upright, standing upright, yes.