• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
"Everybody has a right to their opinion, but no one has a right to be wrong about the facts. Without the facts, your opinion is of no value."-Rene Dahinden
Click to expand...

Which facts? The fact that hours after the event Roger said he was pinned under his horse and bent his stirrup and hurt his foot?

"I yelled 'Bob Lookit' and there about 80 or 90 feet in front of us this giant humanoid creature stood up. My horse reared and fell, completely flattening a stirrup with my foot caught in it.

"My foot hurt but I couldn't think about it because I was jumping up and grabbing the reins to try to control the horse. I saw my camera in the saddle bag and grabbed it out, but I finally couldn't control the horse anymore and had to let him go."
Click to expand...
 
carcharodon said:
Er who said I did??

I am merely offering a counter point to the scoftic. Never once have I said "Bob Gimlin was looking at the sasquatch the whole time". My argument to Diogenese was "how do you know Gimlin was looking at Patterson the whole time of the horse incident and never once looking at the sasquatch". Big difference.

I have not stated anything as fact in this regard.
Click to expand...

carcharodon said:
Do you trully and honestly believe that Bob Gimlin was totally focused and rivited on Roger Patterson and his horse at that particular time and not looking at all at the huge bulky ape like beast not too far from him??
Click to expand...
This is what you said. Would you not say you said this with conviction?

I too did not state anything in fact. Saying something with conviction does not make it a fact.

It remains if Bob Gimlin was behind Patterson he had a good view of what was going on with Patterson at the time the horse reared and tried to reverse direction. I've heard nothing to define whether Patterson was clear of the brushpile when he saw the animal or whether he was just clearing it whereas Patterson would still have been behind the brushpile. It's subjective. We can opine about it but we don't really know.

Gimlin has never said to my knowledge that Patterson's horse was making all this fuss and that he (Gimlin) never knew why becuase he didn't see the sasquatch at that point and didn't know what was going on.
Click to expand...
Gimlin did say Patterson's horse was "making a fuss" as you call it in the interview with John Green. He even goes so far as to state emphatically that the horse never fell down, but Patterson says it did.

You've made a good point. "he didn't say" exactly when he initially observed the animal.


The fact that Gimlin seems to have been behind Patterson would also explain why Patterson apparantely saw the animal squating/crouching then rise up fully erect and why Gimlin only saw it standing upright. I see you didn't acknowledge this point I made earlier but would like to bring it up now. Very strange.[/QUOTE]

You can't have it both ways. Did he see the animal when Patterson did or was he behind the brushpile? We dont' know, do we?
 
carcharodon said:
Aside from a Patty replica, there are plenty of people who have tried to come up with a bigfoot costume, both in the movies, in commercials, for documentaries and for hoaxes. You Tube has a new hoax almost every week it would seem......so people are trying to make bigfoot facsmilies. They just can't seem to do it.
Click to expand...



This is a question for the proponents of the PGF.

Are there any gorilla "facsimiles" or costumes that Hollywood (or whoever) has produced that you would consider successful?
 
My guess is that several bigfoot costumes we have seen over the years would work okay in the same circumstances as the PGF. Keeping in mind that at the time of PGF, no one knew what a sasquatch should look like, so there is no need to say our other costume would need to look like Patty to work.

I always laugh when believers compare a costume to Patty because of this. The assumption is that Patty is what a sasquatch looks like, when the fact is that no one really knows, and Patty might be a suit. You hear big guffaws because the replication doesn't look like Patty. It's hilarious.
 
William Parcher said:
Wow. Gimlin saw Patty and must have seen the film, and yet he still says the arms hang below the knees. Gimlin sounds like Heironimus, but here only weeks after the encounter, right Lu?
Click to expand...

carcharodon said:
LOL, the HUGE difference, clever cloggs, is that if Bob Gimlin is telling the truth (which he is) then his encounter was a heart stopping exciting heat of the moment adrenalin rush. In such circumstances where everything is happening bang bang bang you are bound to think things were a little different than they were. I know. I have experienced it myself.
Click to expand...

But as I said, Gimlin almost certainly would have watched the film before this interview. Yet he still says the arms went past the knees. Maybe he did think that during the excitement of the encounter, but that situation is gone when he sits down and watches the film.

If Bob Heironimus is telling the truth (which of course he isn't) then there was no bang bang bang, no adrenalin rush no excitement at seeing something extraordinary, nothing heart stopping. Heironimus would in fact have been in sober mood and would have had plenty of time to take proper note of evreything, including the suit. His description of the suit just doesn't jive with what we see in the footage. Bob H is clearly lying.
Click to expand...

BH does not have to take proper notes of the suit at any time. He said that P&G had to help him put it on and take it off, and that he only wore it at Bluff Creek for little more than we see in the footage. Even so, he says that the headpiece was like an old football helmet and the feet were like bedroom slippers. That's his recollections of what he thought parts of the suit were like. It doesn't matter though because he's only giving us an idea of the suit from his recalled opinions. You say some things don't jive with what we see in the footage, but that doesn't matter. The headpiece very well may have seemed like a helmet to him, and the feet may have seemed like slippers.

Assume for just a moment that BH really was in the Patty suit, and that he would answer questions from an interviewer the day after he wore it...

So what was the head thing all about?
It was like a football helmet.
What were the feet all about?
They were like bedroom slippers.
 
William Parcher said:
Agreed, LTC. What blows my mind was that Titmus was able to create a map at-the-scene of where Roger walked when he filmed Patty. He was able to do this at least 8 days after the event and there were rains. When he comes upon the scene, he would see Patterson & Gimlin tracks going every which way including numerous tracks that would be alongside Patty's tracks. He would see horse tracks all over the place going every which way. He would see Laverty (and possibly his coworkers) tracks mixed in. Out of all that, he is somehow able to decide which set of tracks were made when Roger was holding the camera. Incredible!
Click to expand...

carcharodon said:
You are forgetting also that when John Green and Jim McClarin visited the film site the following June (some 8 months or so later) there were still apparantely some depressions left where some tracks had been cast....and you're quibbling over 9 or 10 days???
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter that Green & McClarin saw depressions there later. You missed the point of my astonishment of Titmus. When he arrives at the scene, he must have been presented with a huge array of human footprints from various people. Somehow out of all of that he manages to not only discern which footprints are those of Patterson, but also determine which of those were laid down when he held the camera. I find that amazing.
 
carcharodon said:
The fact that Gimlin seems to have been behind Patterson would also explain why Patterson apparantely saw the animal squating/crouching then rise up fully erect and why Gimlin only saw it standing upright. I see you didn't acknowledge this point I made earlier but would like to bring it up now. Very strange.
Click to expand...

According to Patterson, she stood there looking at them for 30 seconds before walking away. I don't understand why we don't see some of that on the film.
 
sarcastic_hand.gif


http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/madhouse/sarcastic_hand.gif

That address seems to work.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Which facts? The fact that hours after the event Roger said he was pinned under his horse and bent his stirrup and hurt his foot?
Click to expand...

"I yelled 'Bob Lookit' and there about 80 or 90 feet in front of us this giant humanoid creature stood up. My horse reared and fell, completely flattening a stirrup with my foot caught in it.

"My foot hurt but I couldn't think about it because I was jumping up and grabbing the reins to try to control the horse. I saw my camera in the saddle bag and grabbed it out, but I finally couldn't control the horse anymore and had to let him go."
Click to expand...

This is what makes that ongoing disagreement between P&G about the horse so bizarre. How could Gimlin not have known that Patterson's stirrup got completely flattened and that his foot hurt... right there after the encounter? What does RP mean by completely flattened? If it was bent to an extreme, how did he even get his boot out of it at all? Was it bent so much that it became unusable? Wouldn't it seem logical that Roger soon would have mentioned to Bob that his stirrup was all screwed up because his horse crushed it?

Why would Gimlin continue to deny that the horse crashed to the ground if it completely flattened the stirrup right there at Bluff Creek?
 
That's part of the story we'll never know. Patterson and Gimlin didn't even agree on whether the horse fell flattening the stirrup and injuring Patterson.

Does anyone know how small the pony Patterson was riding actually was? I know Gimlin said his horse was 14 hands tall.
 
Last edited:
There are still images of the pony/horse RP was riding that are taken from the "documentary footage" as part of the PGF.

But Patterson displayed the bent stirrup at lectures. Why would Gimlin continue to deny the crash even with the existence of a bent stirrup to prove that Patterson was right and he was wrong? Maybe we should read-between-the-lines and understand that Gimlin just wouldn't come right out and say that Roger had hoaxed the bent stirrup and was using it as a phony prop?
 
Perhaps by the time you read this, Sasquatch's existence will have been proved. Roger Patterson, financed by $75,000 from the Northwest Research Association, of Yakima, Washington a maker of documentary films, is continuing his search. This time he is using lures, dogs and tranquilizer guns hoping to capture a living specimen.
Click to expand...

$434,482.76 in the year 2006 has the same "purchase power" as $75,000.00 in the year 1968.
Click to expand...

Good ROI for Roger...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom