• 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.
tube said:
Yet the aforementioned Monsterquest teaser tells us, and I quote: "Monsterquest reveals the truth of legendary monster sightings around the world."
http://www.bigfoottimes.net/
Click to expand...

It is clearly stated that the History Channel was referring to the entire "series" of shows. Not any particular show. Perez was jumping at the gun, and likely miffed due to the fact that they did not call on him. Of all the nerve.

The History Channel is hamstrung by all high profile researchers refusing to either publicly admit or being completely without a clue, that the Bigfoot people are supernatural, paranormal, inter-dimensional, and pretty darn smart besides. These facts have been known for a very long time. Since the 60's by mainstream westcoast America. And a whole lot earlier by Native Americans.
 
tube said:
Noted Bigfoot advocate Daniel Perez seems less than enthused by the recent MonsterQuest program, particularly the fact the program claimed that Caddy was examining the ORIGINAL P&G film:

"Like you, I watched this monstrosity disguised as a documentary on our favorite topic, Bigfoot. It was a huge disappointment in my opinion as you really didn't learn anything about the subject matter, just the same old song and dance. Their experts on the P-G Bigfoot film, Owen Caddy and Dr. Daris Swindler... since when, I should ask? Why didn't they interview Chris Murphy, John Green or M.K. Davis to discuss the nuts and bolts of this movie? Murphy, Green and Davis really have a handle on the P-G film. And the producer, Doug Hajicek, whom I met in 2003, did a major disservice to a trusting American television audience by stating, and more than once, that what was being studied was the ORIGINAL Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film, when in fact that is not so. They were working with a copy and the whereabouts of the ORIGINAL movie footage is still in question. You, the trusting viewer, were deceived and mislead.

Or, maybe I am wrong. Perhaps the lawyers would liken it to something like this: that was just using a liberal license in filmmaking.

Yet the aforementioned Monsterquest teaser tells us, and I quote: "Monsterquest reveals the truth of legendary monster sightings around the world." Yet somehow you were lied to about the most celebrated film footage of the legendary Bigfoot, the Patterson-Gimlin film. So it begs the question: what else did they tell you that wasn't on the level."

http://www.bigfoottimes.net/
Click to expand...



reply:

Danny is "noted" for hassling Dr Meldrum at the last symposium, and for
committing gross libel with his unwanted scandal-sheet.

El M.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
William Parcher said:
Look, monstro is Jon-Erik Beckjord. He and his many JREF aliases were banned from this forum. He's been banned from virtually every forum he joins. By using various tactics, he often manages to register again on a forum he has been banned from. Since so many Bigfooters already know about him he tries to act like it isn't really him. His narcissism and ego will not let him get away with this for long, and so he outs himself and gets banned again. It's a stupid cat and mouse game. He seems to even be comfortable with everyone thinking and saying that he is crazy. It's all about getting attention no matter what kind it is. So far his posts here as monstro are feeble attempts to have the reader think that he is not Beckjord. All of them are directly or subtly supportive of his theories on Bigfoot. Some are so distinctly odd that they cannot be attributed to anyone other than him.

He claimed that MK Davis has found what appears to be a vagina and anus. That is not true. Davis claims to see a butt crack and matted feces. Beckjord is the one who claims to see the vagina and anus. If he wasn't trying to conceal his own identity, he would just cite his own theories, website and forum. So a bizarre man becomes even more bizarre because he actively pretends to not be himself.
Click to expand...

Bill:
You were NOT at the Idaho convention where MK showed video and powerpoint that showed the anus very clearly, and he even had quotes from
proctologists (of which you are one) saying it was an anus.

El M.
 
Monstro slipped up and typed Beckjord's trademark "Bonk!" over in the simple challenge thread. Let's not give him any more of our time.

I have reported the slip up, so the mods should remove Beckstro soon.
 
A general note about sock puppets. Please do not accuse people openly in the forum of being sock puppets. All it does is cause bickering and derails, as can clearly be seen here. Use the report function to alert the admins to anyone you feel is a sock, explaining who you think they are, and why.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
LTC8K6 said:
Looks like a suit can give the effect, WP.
Click to expand...

Only in your imagination, LTC.

Let's see a video of a suit in motion giving that effect.....and only on some strides, and not others.

Good luck with that! :)

(I expect we'll see that video on the 12th of NEVER.)
 
Last edited:
I guess SweatyFoot missed the DiscoveryChannel program where Dr. Jeff admitted the actor in a suit made the walk look easy ...


Hang in there sweaty.. Regardless of size, at least they're made of brass...
 
Last edited:
Thurkon said:
1) Bob Hieronimus, a close associate of Patterson and Gimlin, claimed to be the guy in the suit. Multiple friends and relatives not only back up his story, and claim they were aware of it in 1967, but also claim to have seen the suit in his trunk before Patterson and Gimlin reclaimed it. Add to this a confession by a known maker of gorilla suits that claimed to have sold Patterson a suit, which he was fully capable of modifying. I mean, what are the odds that the best footage we have to date was shot by a guy who was purposefully out to film Bigfoot…with a rented camera…at a time when having and renting cameras was not commonplace. Smells fishy to me.
Click to expand...

A number of people have made this claim over the years. An even greater number of "Hollywood SFX" guys have claimed to be the person who made the suit. This is a cheap effort at easy publicity. The number of claims doesn't mean one or more aren't true; but it's not evidence of anything at all.

2) Despite the claims of Footers, many independent experts have claimed that the footage seems to depict a person of human height and girth, with a human center of balance, walking with a gait (albeit forced) within human means.
Click to expand...

No one can authoritatively say this. But certainly, human size is within the range of possibilities shown in the film.

3) The breasts, probably molded on so as to explain why this Bigfoot wasn’t 8 feet tall (being a smaller female), were covered with fur…an anomaly in the primate world. The fur also seems to be of uniform length throughout the “creature”, further indication of a costume. Add to that the immobile fur diaper, and you got...monkey suit!
Click to expand...

Having gone through the stabilized version many times frame by frame, I think it looks like a real animal. I don't believe in Bigfoot, and I do believe the film is a hoax, but I give credit where credit is due. It's astounding quality - especially given the state of the art in Hollywood ape suits in 1967 (Planet of the Apes, "Galileo 7" episode of Star Trek).

4) Failure of Patterson and crew to pursue the creature after the 60 seconds of footage, even when the creature was not moving very fast.
Click to expand...

I saw the cameraman run after it all he could while still filming. The subject in the film was booking at a pretty good clip, certainly faster than a man could while holding an unstabilized camera still.

Footage is jerky and amateurish, even to a ridiculous degree. No attempt to manually zoom into subject…film is full wide the whole time.
Click to expand...

It was a fixed focal-length lens, and it wasn't digitally stabilized like your camcorder is. It looks no different than handheld combat footage from vietnam. You can hardly fault it for this.

5) Failure of anyone, anywhere to get better footage than this in almost 40 years despite advanced equipment like trip cameras and the almost universal presence of hand held cameras tells me the creature does not exist.
Click to expand...

This is the money argument. Drop the others. :-)
 
SweatyYeti said:
Only in your imagination, LTC.

Let's see a video of a suit in motion giving that effect.....and only on some strides, and not others.

Good luck with that! :)

(I expect we'll see that video on the 12th of NEVER.)
Click to expand...

Hey Sweaty, are you ever going to explain the wrist bands on Patty?
 
briandunning said:
...snip...Having gone through the stabilized version many times frame by frame, I think it looks like a real animal. I don't believe in Bigfoot, and I do believe the film is a hoax, but I give credit where credit is due. It's astounding quality - especially given the state of the art in Hollywood ape suits in 1967 (Planet of the Apes, "Galileo 7" episode of Star Trek)...snip...
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I will have to disagree regarding the "astounding quality". Check the following screenies. They are from movies that date from the 40s, 50s and 60s. Most of them were not high-budget films. I suspect in similar conditions (short duration, long distance, shaky, low definition, etc.) some of those costumes would look much better than Patty.
kaijufoot.jpg

captive_wild_woman_still.jpg

forbidadv.jpg

nab_sc2.jpg

gor_39_sc6.jpg

orang_f_g_14-1.jpg
 
Correa Neto said:
Sorry, but I will have to disagree regarding the "astounding quality". Check the following screenies. They are from movies that date from the 40s, 50s and 60s. Most of them were not high-budget films. I suspect in similar conditions (short duration, long distance, shaky, low definition, etc.) some of those costumes would look much better than Patty.
Click to expand...

We could take Correa Neto's word for it, or we can make our own independent, unprejudiced observations. In my opinion, it is overwhelmingly obvious that EXACTLY NONE of the costumes posted by CN, are better than the authentic Patty creature. The obvious reason is that there is no authentic body compatible weave to the hair on any of CN's costumes. Whereas, the real Patty has full body compatible weave to her hair. No Hollywood costume has ever duplicated Patty's, full body compatible weave to this day, some 40 years later. And more importantly, Hollywood did not have that technology 40 years ago either, and then lost it. Therefore, virtally this entire thread is a joke because it is a fermentation tank for highly prejudiced group thinking, whose members are in need of counseling. In my humble opinion, of course.
 
briandunning said:
A number of people have made this claim (to be the person in the Patty costume) over the years.
Click to expand...

Hi Brian. I've also seen this posted by a number of Bigfooters (here and on other forums). Some have said that up to six different guys have claimed to be in the suit. I wonder if anyone has accounted for all of these claimants.
A:
1) Who are these guys?
2) What was the context of their "confession"?
3) Are their confessions part of the public record?
4) Did any of them recant their confession?
5) Were any shown to be obviously false confessions?
6) Are any of these confessors still holding to their claim (other than BH)?

B: Same six questions, but switching the claim to be that of a person who makes the claim that another person wore the suit.

An even greater number of "Hollywood SFX" guys have claimed to be the person who made the suit.
Click to expand...

Same six questions as above, with B: being a "Hollywood SFX guy" who makes the claim that another guy made the suit.

I guess I want to know specifically who has claimed to be in the Patty suit and who has claimed to have made the Patty suit. Then I want to know specifics about those claims. Same for those who have made claims of others.

I only know of these...

Wearers of the suit:
1) Jerry Romney (claimed to be the wearer the suit by Clyde Reinke)
2) Bob Heironimus (self claim to be the wearer of the suit - still maintains the claim)

Makers of the suit:
1) Roger Patterson (general claim that the hoaxer also made the suit)
2) John Chambers (claimed to be the maker of the subsequently modified suit by John Volich)
3) Philip Morris (self claim to be the maker of the suit with subsequent modifications made by Roger Patterson)
4) Somebody(s) in Hollywood with association to John Chambers, Wah Chang and/or Janos Prohaska (claimed to be the maker by Dfoot)
 
Last edited:
They cannot produce one single newspaper article about Joe Schmoe claiming to be the guy before BobH came forward. Scott McClean has a nice compilation of over 600 newspaper articles since the 50's and not one guy in the suit confession.
 
Meet the Sasquatch by Christopher Murphy:
p. 84 John Chambers states that he did not design the (P-G) costume.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom