Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[SweatyYeti]

Ooinn wrote:

Incidentally, I had a closer look at the doll hand stills and I call BS. I still don't see any articulation, but I contend that the fingers have been straightened. It's real easy to do, and who ever originally posted this animation must be getting a good chuckle from it all. This is NOT an illusion. I don't believe the doll hand could be orientated into the change we see. The camera position hasn't changed and the doll hand hasn't been rotated. IMO, this amounts to fraud. I would prefer to debunk the PGF legitimately.

I've suspected that myself, too, Mr. Ooinn......but haven't bothered to check into that possibility any further.
It doessn't really matter....even if it's not a fraudulent illusion, it's clear that that's not what is happening with Patty's fingers. (except to a skeptic, of course.)

As soon as I can find one of my old dolls......I'll check that possibility out....just out of curiosity.

 

[RayG]

What's with all the bending fingers crap? In what frame are any individual fingers visible? Can anyone tell how many fingers Patty has? Patty may as well be wearing mittens. Where's the thumb? All I see is some sort of cartoon-like blob stuck at the end of the arm. What next, someone going to claim they can see the nostrils flare?

RayG

 

[LAL]

So I take it that, since you're leaving, you won't be telling me whether or not that factoid about the height of the subject of the Snow Walker video was what made Dr. Meldrum think it was real? Oh well, it's a good thing that I'm handy with a search engine...

Leaving? I just don't want to continue with mangler. I don't have my boxing gloves handy and I don't have the time.

Since you're so good at Googling I shouldn't have to tell you Dr. Meldrum got suspicious when he talked to the supposed witnesses.

9' would be well out of human range. This was a professionally done hoax. Others are much worse.

Interestingly, John Kaviat, the producer of World's Greatest Hoaxes maintained a neutral attitude on a recent news report on Jacob's photos. I'd have thought he'd be all over that.

 

[kitakaze]

What next, someone going to claim they can see the nostrils flare?

RayG

Paging Pastor Anderholm. Paging Pastor Anderholm.

 

[kitakaze]

Interestingly, John Kaviat, the producer of World's Greatest Hoaxes maintained a neutral attitude on a recent news report on Jacob's photos. I'd have thought he'd be all over that.

I saw that. Fox News. Foxy Fox Fox. The writer/producer guy specializing in UFO's didn't say mangy bear. I like his work. Face work, I mean. Reminds me of 'Brazil'.

 

[RayG]

Just when was this established? Roosevelt Elk are in the coast ranges. Rick said the Skookum area elk are mix of Rocky Mountain and Tule (which were once more widespread). Even if they're a mix of Roosevelt and Rocky Mountain, they are presumably smaller than Roosevelt.

It was established by many sources. I provided a number of them in this post. You can continue to ignore facts all you wish, but some of us come to conclusions by following the evidence, not what someone thinks.

Regardless of size, the shape is wrong.

If inadequate experimental testing was conducted to rule out Roosevelt elk as a possible culprit, how can we be sure?

RayG

 

[Spektator]

I posted the photos of my daughter's Ken doll's hand. I balanced the doll on the towel rack in our bathroom, took a photo, turned the doll slightly and moved the hand and took another photo. That was it. The hand is rigid plastic. If I had straightened the fingers, I think they would have broken (and I would have my daughter angry at me).

By the way, neither I nor anyone else ever claimed that the Patty hand "finger-bend" was necessarily an illusion; Sweaty just implied that the only possible explanation for the apparent "finger-bend" was that Patty was an actual creature and had flexed her hand and that there was no other possible explanation. Perspective illusion was one possible explanation, and that's why I took the photos.

 

[William Parcher]

But back to the PGF. Someone (Parcher? I'm not finding the post) mentioned Bigfoot: Man or Beast? It's available from Retroflicks (I have it) and it doesn't have much on the PGF other than the footge and shots of riding and casting. It does have Fred Beck and Albert Ostman in interviews as well as Dr. Krantz and John Green. It's mostly about a Robert Morgan expedition and his picture is on the cover with the caption: "With your host, Grover Krantz."

I don't know if it was me that mentioned B:MorB, but it doesn't matter. I'm curious if the riding and casting scenes are identical to the Mysterious Monsters clip. Does anybody have footage of the Gimlin stomp test? Does anybody have scenery and/or riding footage that is unquestionably from Bluff Creek? I ask this because we are told that P&G spent about 3 weeks camped out at Bluff Creek during which they filmed various "searching for Bigfoot" scenes. I can't account for any pre-Patty Bluff Creek footage other than possibly the few seconds of solo Roger pulling a packhorse. That scene might be from Cowiche Canyon as well, but I think it is not. But why do we see all of this Cowiche Canyon staged footage and almost nothing from Bluff Creek? It's weird because everything in the PGF that leads up to the Patty encounter is phony staging. There is no footage of anybody actually looking for Bigfoot.

So what about that silly wig that Gimlin wore? Did he wear it while they were searching for Bigfoot at Bluff Creek? Sound like a joke doesn't it? No, it's a serious issue. Gimlin was always introduced and billed as the Indian Tracker partner in the search. If Bob isn't wearing the wig while they are at Bluff Creek, then Roger can't film him riding around looking for Bigfoot. "I can't film you unless you put on the wig". I really do wonder if Gimlin had decided to join Roger at the premiere DeAtley film showing... would he have worn the wig?

Regarding any financial interests of Roger Patterson in ANE, John Green addressed this when the book came out.

"I know that Roger Patterson was not employed by American National to assist in the production of their Bigfoot movie, because I had that job, and I still have the correspondence to prove it. Korff has also claimed at times that the making of the movie was somehow a Mormon conspiracy. Ron Olson, son of one of the three owners of American National, says that none of them were Mormons, and that their only association with Patterson was that they paid him for using his footage in their movie. In his article Korff glosses over the fact that “The Making of Bigfoot” contains two detailed, specific, totally contradictory descriptions of the costume supposedly worn in Patterson's movie, one by the man who claims to have worn it, the other by the man who claims to have made it."

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/response_si.htm

Korff makes a number of significant claims against Patterson in which he seems to have inside information. He says that ANE offered to pay Patterson for a film of Bigfoot - if he could get one on film. Patterson promptly did that with Patty. If true, that gun has some smoke.

But there is a rarely referenced interview of Ron Olson from 1973, in which he tells a different story. Ron says that Patterson was first contacted by ANE after filming Patty. Where did Korff get his info that Roger was presented with a deal before filming Patty? Was Olson pretending that ANE had not previously offered to buy a Bigfoot film from Roger?

Other interesting things from the Olson interview:

It was the chance to produce and market a potentially lucrative Bigfoot film that initially motivated Ron Olson, he said. "A Lot of things went up and down for a while, problems with company board members saying "Gee, this thing is too far out and we don’t want to put the money up for that kind of film." But I tested Patterson’s footage on movie audiences and found the subject to be as strong as I predicted it would be," Olson said.

A relatively inexpensive twenty-minute Bigfoot documentary was eventually produced but Olson says it hasn’t been the lucrative and persuasive film he had hope for.

The film lasts only seventeen seconds and the quality is not outstanding.

"I think that in four years of knowing Roger, that if there had been a flaw in the guys personality, that if he even had the possibility of faking something like this, I believe I would have detected it. He was a congenial, quiet guy who would just as soon not talk about his film and who never made a penny off it in his life."

Roger Patterson died last year [1972] of cancer. On his deathbed, he reassured Ron Olson one last time that the Sasquatch film was no fake.

"Roger Patterson wanted to use the creature in a sideshow - - have the thing ride around in a cage, but I strongly disagreed with that."

Lots of other interesting stuff in this interview. I recommend reading it.

 

[kitakaze]

darkwing, LAL, Sweaty, MABRC in general:

Why do you guys believe that there are bigfoot all over the continent?

 

[SweatyYeti]

What's with all the bending fingers crap? In what frame are any individual fingers visible? Can anyone tell how many fingers Patty has? Patty may as well be wearing mittens. Where's the thumb? All I see is some sort of cartoon-like blob stuck at the end of the arm. What next, someone going to claim they can see the nostrils flare?

RayG

Here's the thumb.......incredibly......amazingly....unbelievably...

And....even more incredibly....it also appears to MOVE!!!!

 

[SweatyYeti]

darkwing, LAL, Sweaty, MABRC in general:

Why do you guys believe that there are bigfoot all over the continent?

I base my thinking on the existence of Bigfoot on the weight of the evidence for it's existence.

You had written this a few months ago....

The default position is that bigfoot as it is variously described does not exist. This is the normal and correct position to adopt. Any other position is a fringe belief.

I've been a little too busy lately to write a good response to that...but this is what I think, concerning your statements....

There is no correct "default position" as far as what a person should think concerning Bigfoot.
The ONLY correct, appropriate, way to think about the likelihood, or probability of Bigfoot's existence is to think of it in terms of "degrees, or percentages, of probability"....because that's how the evidence is measured.

If anyone says "I think Bigfoot exists"...or..."I don't think Bigfoot exists"...purely as a "default position", as opposed to a serious, honest look at the true weight of the evidence.....then their position is nothing more than a random, meaningless, thought.
It might as well be a thought based on picking a "number out of a hat".

As for my take on the evidence.....I think it indicates a very high 'degree of probability' that Bigfoot does indeed exist in N. America.....and based on my conversation with Joyce, in NY, that includes Bigfoot in Upstate New York.

 

[kitakaze]

Here's the thumb.......incredibly......amazingly....unbelievably...


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattywinsagain1.gif[/qimg]


And....even more incredibly....it also appears to MOVE!!!!

Sweaty, how did you verify that what you're saying is the thumb was not part of the background?

As a thumb, in what manner do you believe it to be moving?

AFAIK, nobody is positing that Patty has no thumbs. If it were clearly demonstrated that a thumb was visible and even that it moved, how does this make a living sasquatch hand more like than a gorilla glove or some other type of suit piece?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Here's the thumb.......incredibly......amazingly....unbelievably...


[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattywinsagain1.gif[/qimg]


And....even more incredibly....it also appears to MOVE!!!!

The only thing incredible here is your credulousness..


I'm sure you don't find it at all suspicious that the shape of the hand is precisely as we see it in frames 61 & 72 ..


I don't think we are seeing a thumb, I think it's a Darth Vader Pez dispenser ..

The shape is a perfect match ..

Besides it also make a wonderful instrument of self-gratification, during those long lonely nights in the PNW when you have been forced to lead the mighty Bigfoot hunters away from your little ones..

 

[kitakaze]

I base my thinking on the existence of Bigfoot on the weight of the evidence for it's existence.

...

Sweaty, as you well know, there is at this time no reliable evidence for bigfoot whatsoever. Regardless, my intent is to express the fact that given what's been submitted thus far, the general consensus amongst those to whom it is most relevant is that bigfoot has not been shown to be worth serious consideration.

How about this?

Bigfoot as it is variously decribed is absurd and stretches the limits of plausibility.

Bigfoot as it is described through a flawed process of general consensus amongst biased believers looking to present a cohesive image through data mining and filtration is extremely unlikely.

As for my take on the evidence.....I think it indicates a very high 'degree of probability' that Bigfoot does indeed exist in N. America.

As always, Sweaty, how have you measured the weight of the evidence? How have you discerned a high degree of probability? We'd love to hear your math.

Does the rest of the MABRC have the same standards of evidence as you for accepting bigfoot existence in such places as upstate New York?

 

[catbasket]

Here's the thumb.......incredibly......amazingly....unbelievably...

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Pattywinsagain1.gif[/qimg]

And....even more incredibly....it also appears to MOVE!!!!

Yes it appears to move. So I opened the gif in Animation Shop and saved the individual frames. Here are frames 2 through 7 -














I see no thumb. To be honest the pics are such poor quality I don't even see a hand. Just a blur.

 

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:

Sweaty, as you well know, there is at this time no reliable evidence for bigfoot whatsoever.

"Reliable" is not the only level that evidence exists in.

There are many different weights, or levels, of evidence...everything from 'very weak' to 'very strong' to 'proof positive'.
These terms refer to varying "degrees, or percentages, of probability"...regarding the truth of the subject of the evidence.

You can say "there is no "reliable" evidence for Bigfoot's existence.....but you're simply ignoring the many levels of weight that the evidence for Bigfoot does indeed carry.

You're free to do that, kitty....along with Greg.

Regardless, my intent is to express the fact that given what's been submitted thus far, the general consensus amongst those to whom it is most relevant is that bigfoot has not been shown to be worth serious consideration.

"Serious consideration" is a highly relative term.

To someone with a closed mind....Bigfoot is indeed not worth serious consideration.
To many intelligent people, including myself, Bigfoot is absolutely well-worth serious consideration.

One thing that's undeniable..... by you, kitakaze, and every other person on this board.....is that Bigfoot is well-worth spending some SERIOUS amount of time discussing....by proponents, skeptics, open and closed-minded people alike!

Have you seen the number of views and responses, to this Bigfoot thread alone??

 

[mangler]

WP,

This is my favorite quote from the Olson interview, "There’s an extremely find line between fact and fantasy when you’re dealing with this subject. If you don’t stay on the factual side of that line, the people will throw rocks at you."


m

 

[SweatyYeti]

Yes it appears to move. So I opened the gif in Animation Shop and saved the individual frames. Here are frames 2 through 7 -

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/343472dfe046e1fe.gif[/URL]

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/343472dfe299217a.gif[/URL]

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/343472dfe486ec2b.gif[/URL]

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/343472dfe621ebf5.gif[/URL]

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/343472dfe96dc6cc.gif[/URL]

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/343472dfeab80186.gif[/URL]


I see no thumb. To be honest the pics are such poor quality I don't even see a hand. Just a blur.

Hmmm.....what could that be, on the end of Patty's arm???.....

Maybe it's a cheeseburger.......or maybe it's a bottle of Windex....


Hence my use of the term "sewer of a forum".

 

[GT/CS]

kitakaze wrote:


"Reliable" is not the only level that evidence exists in.

There are many different weights, or levels, of evidence...everything from 'very weak' to 'very strong' to 'proof positive'.
These terms refer to varying "degrees, or percentages, of probability"...regarding the truth of the subject of the evidence.

You can say "there is no "reliable" evidence for Bigfoot's existence.....but you're simply ignoring the many levels of weight that the evidence for Bigfoot does indeed carry.

You're free to do that, kitty....along with Greg.






"Serious consideration" is a highly relative term.

To someone with a closed mind....Bigfoot is indeed not worth serious consideration.
To many intelligent people, including myself, Bigfoot is absolutely well-worth serious consideration.

One thing that's undeniable..... by you, kitakaze, and every other person on this board.....is that Bigfoot is well-worth spending some SERIOUS amount of time discussing....by proponents, skeptics, open and closed-minded people alike!

Have you seen the number of views and responses, to this Bigfoot thread alone??

And yet the belilevers ignore all the evidence that debunks bigfoot.

Sweaty, how do you explain the band between the sleeve and the glove?

 

[kitakaze]

kitakaze wrote:


"Reliable" is not the only level that evidence exists in.

Yes, bigfootery learned this from it's many years of trying to pass off all that evidence that falls in the 'anecdotal' and 'circumstantial' categories. This is central to your belief system, Sweaty; that you can get away with referring to these things as evidence and saying they have degrees of probability. Of course, in the end we get to poor our weak coffee analogy all over you.

It doesn't really ever matter how long your denial persists, Sweaty. The simple fact is that we're all dying for some bigfoot evidence- the reliable kind. The kind that is very difficult to reasonably attribute to something other than bigfoot. You know this very well from the manifold amount of times it's been explained to you what type of evidence that is and how it is distinct from proof.

But please, tell us about this very strong bigfoot evidence.

"Serious consideration" is a highly relative term.

Yes, incensed footers are allowed to contend the term. Meanwhile, bigfoot's continued non-confirmation by the scientists, researchers, and various professionals that work daily in these places where we're being told bigfoot populations are carrying on with their existence does all that is necessary to vaildate the scientific community's consensus of 'not worth serious consideration'.

One thing that's undeniable..... by you, kitakaze, and every other person on this board.....is that Bigfoot is well-worth spending some SERIOUS amount of time discussing.

Have you seen the number of views and responses, to this Bigfoot thread alone??

Absolutely, tell that to Lyndon. Just as are 9/11 CTs, UFOs, and 'psychic' scammers.

Of course, if you had the mental fortitude to defend your flawed ideas about bigfoot more, or at least some better evidence to come here with you'd know how silly your question is.