Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Skeptical Greg]

" ..I'd say somewhere in the $10,000 - $15,000 ballpark for 1967 dollars ..... "

Comfort food for Pattycakes...

Them Emperor's new clothes, shore are darned expensive ....

 

[Drewbot]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6bmwyC8hIM

Move to the 2:30 mark of the video.
Referencing the 'black' gorilla, note the diaper butt, note the wrist bands, note production date of 1949, note Crash Corrigan starred in the movie, note that Roger Patterson worked at Corriganville previous to making the PGF.

 

[William Parcher]

This comment from BFF deserves discussion because it is another common falsehood that is prevalent among the Pattycakes...

Based on the other suit offerings from the time though, I have to say that the PGF creature suit - if it was a suit - was clearly a masterpiece.

The Patty costume is not a masterpiece... it is a failure.

Not only did the suit not convince the world of its authenticity, but more specifically many people were convinced it was a suit right from the beginning. That has not changed and time is not being very gracious as a reinforcement of its authenticity. But the Pattycakes turn reality upside-down. They say it has "withstood the test of time" and remains unbunked. Yet hardly anyone proclaims it to be real. They say the suit must be a masterpiece. Yet many if not most people think it looks like a guy walking in a Bigfoot costume.

Melissa said that if it is a suit then Roger missed his calling in Hollywood as a premier costume designer. Oh? His Patty suit was so crappy and the guy inside was so humanish that most people think it is just that. Why would Hollywood ever want to hire a guy that builds a suit that results in only a fraction of the viewing audience thinking they are not seeing a costume? You don't hire Roger Patterson, and the reason is because his Patty suit wasn't even close to convincing the audience. Patty was a failure. This thread would not even exist as is, if Roger had made a truly masterpiece suit.

This is just cult thinking. Soarwing, Melissa and many others are projecting their own convictions upon the world as if they are some sort of universal truth. If it looks real to them then it should look real to everyone else too. What does it mean when only a handful of people say that if Patty is a hoax - then she is a masterpiece of deception?

Roger Patterson failed in a spectacular way. Forty years later, only a small and strange subculture thinks with devotion that it was not a hoax.

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...By the way, Munn is now describing how he would build a Patty suit on BFF.

Yes, I saw his cost estimates. Just a few comments (for now) to serve as food for thought:

Gorilla costumes from $439 to $3999
http://www.facemakersincorporated.com/gorilla.html
Two of them seem quite realistic, including non-human IM. Other (cheaper) ones have short hairs, not unlike Patty's at all. With a couple of changes, some of them could become nice bigfeet, if filmed under the same circunstances of PGF, I think.

At e-bay there was this page
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/The-Lost-World...QQcmdZViewItem
offering an ape-man costume by 80 pounds + 10 pounds of shipping (IIRC), used in the "Lost World" film made in 2000. Simple on the making, they seem quite good for a hoax. Just tried to access it now, but its no longer available. I saved the pics, just in case, so if anyone wants to see it, I can upload them.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6bmwyC8hIM

Move to the 2:30 mark of the video.
Referencing the 'black' gorilla, note the diaper butt, note the wrist bands, note production date of 1949, note Crash Corrigan starred in the movie, note that Roger Patterson worked at Corriganville previous to making the PGF.

Good catch ..

The shoulder pads of the Black Gorilla look a bit Pattyesque also ..

 

[Avindair]

Reply:
So stop asking that it be done, because it WAS DONE

M.

Wow, didn't know. Of course, that leads to a couple of questions:

1. So, it was "rumored to have been shown" is the best we've got?
2. Was an independent analysis of said footage ever performed?
3. Is there a detailed record of the creation of said footage?

These aren't "lazy questions"; this is 'curiosity'.

Avindair

 

[Hitch]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6bmwyC8hIM

Move to the 2:30 mark of the video.
Referencing the 'black' gorilla, note the diaper butt, note the wrist bands, note production date of 1949, note Crash Corrigan starred in the movie, note that Roger Patterson worked at Corriganville previous to making the PGF.

Good catch ..

The shoulder pads of the Black Gorilla look a bit Pattyesque also ..

To me, this doesn't really look much like "Patty." There's too much effort to make the actors look "ape-like." The distortion of the body proportions are too pronounced. The quality of the filming is also way too good.

However, if you took one of those costumes and simplified the under-suit (to make it cheaper and create more of a "missing link" effect), trimmed the fur shorter (because you don't need to cover the seams as well if you're never going to shoot anything but an extreme long shot), and simplify the head (no need for detailed mouth articulation if you're never going to show it), then have the actor stand up straight. You might be pretty close. Then 40 years of wishful thinking and pareidolia might just give you "Patty."

 

[Avindair]

This is just cult thinking. Soarwing, Melissa and many others are projecting their own convictions upon the world as if they are some sort of universal truth.

I couldn't have said this better myself.

I'm continually astonished at the amount of effort the average Credufoot puts into defending this ridiculous film.

To my thinking, that's the real mystery: Why is that otherwise reasonable, intelligent people just shut down their logic centers when this topic comes up? What makes them utterly blind to contradictions in the stories, the impossibility of the film processing timelines, Patterson's history with filmmakers and hoaxers and, of course, the fact that it's clearly a guy in a freaking suit on screen?

The topic of credulity in the face of the Patterson-Gimlin film is a Master's Thesis waiting to be written.

Avindair

 

[Cuddles]

Historian, you already have a thread to discuss your invisible bigfoots. Do not keep trying to derail other threads.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[Dfoot]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/7766478e64b230bb6.jpg




Dfoot, help me understand what you are seeing and saying.

Patty has formed ears that are hidden beneath hair? You can see the right ear through the hair?

Yes. The wig and hair was removed from the STAR TREK head and it was painted. Next, hair was glued onto the face and head. Then a "cap" similar to those you find on most gorilla masks was created to fit over the top of the skull.


On the RIGHT (top and bottom) is PATTY. On the TOP LEFT is the TOR mask I glued Wookie lips to for a Halloween dummy. On the BOTTOM LEFT is the mask that was used to create "Patty".

If you look carefully at the two blurred pics of Patty you'll notice the ear at the same location as the Star Trek head. It has hair over it, but it's there.


I made a little quickie version of a hair "cap" for the dummy after gluing some hair I snipped from the hair suit onto the face and head. In the middle shot you can see the ear and in other angles the ear is hard to see - yet it's there.

What makes the PG film work is the poor quality of it that allows the watcher to fill in the blanks with imagination. I think that's important to consider with all of the various hoaxes discussed on JREF, not just Patty.

What hurts is the fact that AL HODGSON spoke to Patterson just after 6 pm and Patterson told him that he'd already been to Eureka and mailed the film to DeAtley from the post office.

The Post Office had closed around 4 pm. For Patterson to have done all that he claimed he did with Gimlin and then driven to Eureka and back by 6 pm is pretty much impossible. IF they were only pretending, of course, then the film was already edited and waiting for them a week or so earlier. That fits in with what Heironimus had to say.

Damn reality keeps interfering with this thing.


Planet of the Apes... ear then no ear from a head in motion.

 

[William Parcher]

I'm continually astonished at the amount of effort the average Credufoot puts into defending this ridiculous film.

Yeah, but we are talking specifically about the PGF believers (I call them Pattycakes) and that does not include all who believe in Bigfoot (Bigfooters). There is an even smaller group (among Pattycakes) who put out lots of this effort that you mention. Roger Knights may the the poster child for volumous verbage on the authenticity of Patty. But Knights has been very scarce going on a year now. Something is going on with him because hundreds of huge postings could have been made by him in his absence on BFF.

Activity in the PGF section of BFF has dropped to a minimum (Munn's new threads withstanding) in recent times. What was once the hottest section can sometimes go days without any postings. It is changing. Many of the most prominant and vocal BFF Pattycakes are simply missing. Go look at hot PGF threads from 2003-6 and who was zooming their PGF post counts back then. Where are all of these people now? Some can still be accounted for there and in other forums, but a huge chunk of them seem to have vanished or no longer make posts.

My feeling is that at least some of this is because the situation for anyone defending the PGF has never been worse. You really have to keep inventing ridiculous explanations and excuses, and those multiply and ramp up when you are facing informed and capable skeptics. Many people could not keep doing that for a long time. The modern approach seems to be to keep the discussion at a minimum. Truly aggressive Pattycakes are asked to calm down on BFF like never before. Lyndon's tenure there allows him to be more rabid than most. It's a cultish clique that favors belief over non-belief, but it has changed in ways that are more accomodating to skeptics. In the old days, a 'slam post' in response to a PGF skeptic would be followed by six posts containing nothing but a high-five emoticon. You still see it but it has diminished.

Meanwhile, the rest of us get to watch the creeping death of the PGF. It is one of the greatest icons of North American culture in spite of not being a real Bigfoot. I do love it for what it is.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I think a few PGF'ers may have realized, that evidence consists of more than;

" It looks real to me .. "

Lyndon is certainly not one of those..

 

[William Parcher]

Why has only one person publicly confessed to being in the Patty suit? Because it's close to social suicide to publicly confess to this if you weren't in the suit.

The false claim of there being numerous (I've heard up to six) confessors is spread because of its inherent appeal. The film is ripe for false confessors (they are hoaxers) and over time up to six of them have made the claim. You know that five of them are certainly lying by numerical default. Bob Heironimus is fundamentally the same as the other five. His insignificance is so apparent that MonsterQuest never mentions his name. Meldrum's new scientific paper on the PGF footprints makes no mention that a man has publicly confessed to being in the suit. The numerous confessors are just a rotten lot and it's not worth the effort to type their names.

Any false confessor has a huge problem. They have to face a living Bob Gimlin. If you were not in the suit or very close to the hoax he is going to tear you apart in cross-examination and still be able to maintain his own lie. BG doesn't even try this with BH.

Any public confessor is claiming more than just being in the suit. They are publicly claiming that Gimlin is a liar. It's not such a small lie either because it could be considered fraud on a grand scale. That sets you up for defamation lawsuits and who knows what else. Would you tell your story about liar Gimlin to an author so that the whole world can buy it from Amazon.com? If Gimlin contacted you and asked you over for dinner would you bring a bodyguard?

Who the hell would or could jump through those flaming hoops? Bob Heironimus has publicly confessed and he is not backing down. That could change and it is worth noting that he allows himself to be publicly cross-examined. Gimlin won't do it, and he won't do interviews either.

The Tar Baby stayed still and Brer Fox, he lay low.

 

[SweatyYeti]

William Parcher wrote:

His Patty suit was so crappy and the guy inside was so humanish that most people think it is just that.

Why would Hollywood ever want to hire a guy that builds a suit that results in only a fraction of the viewing audience thinking they are not seeing a costume?

So....you mean Hollywood only hires costume designers who build convincing costumes???!

Could you do me a favor, William, and show me one "convincing costume"?!



(FYI.....this ain't one of them)....

...and neither are these......

Ooops.....they misfired on this one, too....

Finally....here's the 'Beast from the Shaggy Lagoon"........

(I think that one just might be a real monster, of some sort.)

William.......you keep dreamin'.

 

[SweatyYeti]

"Heyyyyy....pick me, William...pick me!!! I'm the real McCoy!"

 

[SweatyYeti]

Actually...there is one "suit" which has been able to keep people scratching their heads....wondering....for about the last 40 years, or so....

 

[Drewbot]

Why compare bad gorilla suits with Patty?
I will say this though, shoot any of them at 90+ feet with a kodak 700, I'll bet they'll look similar to 'Patty'

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Actually...there is one "suit" which has been able to keep people scratching their heads....wondering....for about the last 40 years, or so....

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/Patterson_still.jpg[/qimg]

Right Sweaty ..

But I don't think your post imparts the message you think it does..

Most people don't scratch their heads and wonder about the PGF at all; anymore than most people walk out of the theaters, wondering and scratching their heads, after seeing Transformers ..

 

[William Parcher]

Sweaty, you miss the point and the reality of what is going on in Hollywood.

Assuming the PGF is a hoax, it is quite obvious that Patterson wanted the world to think that Patty was a real Bigfoot. Hollywood doesn't really do that. When they put a Bigfoot on any screen they make no lies about it being a real Bigfoot. There is no pretense whatsover that they are using a real Bigfoot as an actor.

Those screen costumes you showed are not attempts to fool anyone in the audience into thinking the producers got their hands on a real live Bigfoot that can follow a script. If that was the true intent it might very well be impossible to achieve.

What is important for Hollywood about any Bigfoot costume is that it is not so distractingly fake that it tempers the entertainment value. Anything that is considered good is then regarded as a great chance to make money in Hollywood. Problems only arise when the suit quality actually affects box office receipts. There is no real incentive to create a truly perfect Bigfoot suit that would even fool Bigfooters. Totally unnecessary. They sure don't give a rat's ass about duplicating Patty.

Even still, "Hollywood" does have the potential to fool people (including Bigfooters) into thinking one of their costumes is a real Bigfoot. The Penn & Teller hoax showed that.

 

[Avindair]

Were any of those "examples" you provided, Sweaty, shot over-exposed with a consumer-rated 16 mm camera, with the subject tiny in frame? Oh, yes, and with a cameraman pointlessly shaking the camera?

Didn't think so.

This is a perfect example of the kind of cherry-picked logic that Pattyphiles offer when challenged about the suit in the PGF. Heck, it's almost a syllogism:

Since I can tell these are people in suits
And since the PGF subject is tiny and blurry
...it can't be a man in a suit!

It's enough to drive a person to drink.

Then I remind myself that I'm dealing with belief here, and not science, and I relax.

Avindair