Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[GT/CS]

Huh.... It really took 2 posts to get that out - did it? And you call me unstable.

I just love this board.

HI CORREA NETO!!! Long time no chat. I hope you are well (being serious not a smart a*ss).

I had to drop by and say hi - after I noticed Drapier signed up to take me to task. Drapier, its like old times. Avindair its nice to see you spreading the love all the way over to the BFF again. Did I miss anyone? The only person missing is William Parcher

I wish you all a happy new year - and dont break your computers over the recent events.

Ok, Im out - take care all!!! Big hugs.

Don't like that one? OK, how about, "well adjusted"? Hey, just be glad I didn't say, "sane". See, I had so many to choose from I just wanted to make sure I picked the right one without doing so in haste.

 

[William Parcher]

If that first frame is Bluff creek, it looks bone dry .. It was running when the Patty footage was made ..

Hmmm...

Does that image show the entirety of the creekbed, or a portion of it? Aerial shots and the scale model of the 'Patty walk theater' show an enormous creekbed with a relatively small running creek snaking through it.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

You can see both banks ..

I guess there could be water running off to the left ..

Not a show stopper after all ..

 

[William Parcher]

You can see both banks ..

Only if you regard the V created by the two hillsides in front of us as the path of the creekbed and running creek.

I guess there could be water running off to the left ..

I'm thinking if the cameraman only tilts the lens downwards the running creek comes into view. The entire creekbed is not in this view because there is more beneath the field of view. The cameraman appears to be at a higher elevation than the rider.

Not a show stopper after all..

I love it because it's another chance for WP to work on identifying riders and their horses.

 

[William Parcher]

FWIW.

It's said that Patterson is a lefty. It has also been suggested that riders will normally hold the reins in their dominant hand. The 'actors' image that we all now know shows Roger holding the reins as a lefty. Cool, and it seems appropriate. But look who else is using their left hand. Are Ballard and Gimlin also lefties? Does the shirt closure on Patterson indicate that this image has not been flipped? Do riders sometimes hold the reins in their non-dominant hand?

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

But where is Munns going with this?

According to this 2001 article:

While some have since claimed that the film is a hoax, longtime Hollywood special-effects creator Bill Munns said it would have been impossible in 1967 to fake a creature suit like the one depicted in the film. "With today's technology, yes, you could fake a fur suit like that," said Munns, who did just that when he built a life-size model of the giant fossil ape Gigantopithecus blacki — a possible evolutionary link to Sasquatch — for University of Iowa anthropologist Russell Ciochon. "But in the 1960s, short, dense stretch fur was nonexistent."

Of course, this is assuming that the fur actually is as short as he thinks it is. Didn't Patterson say that the fur was 2-4 inches long? Would it have been possible for a costume to have its fur slicked down with some sort of gel so that it didn't look shaggy/get the sort of result seen in the P/G film?

 

[Correa Neto]

Uhm...

Hairspray?

Remember, we're talking about the 60s'!

 

[kitakaze]

Bill Munns:

But in the 1960s, short, dense stretch fur was nonexistent."

Is this some kind of joke?

 

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

Hairspray?

Remember, we're talking about the 60s'!

Excellent point, but I still have some questions. Would hairspray still let the fur have the tell-tale indicators of it being fake (specifically, the details at Stan Winston and Dr. Heuvelmans noted)? Also, would hairspray allow for the movement of fake muscles to be seen? However, if the "moving muscles" can be shown to be just film grans (as it has been alleged elsewhere), that question becomes a moot point.

Bill Munns:Is this some kind of joke?

I'm afraid not. Judging from his posts at the BFF, Mr. Munns seems convinced that 4-way stretch fabric with short, dense fur didn't exist at the time. Not being up on the history of stretch fur, I can't say whether or not that's correct. Does anyone here have any info on the matter?

On a similar note, I wonder what they used to make the costume for the ape-man that appears 1:13-1:28 into this video? His fur looks pretty short to me...

As a special bonus, here's what might be the Don Post caveman mask (Go here if that link doesn't work). Those with good memories will recall that Dfoot had to use Wookiee mask lips as a replacement for lips from a Don Post caveman mask for when building his Patty mask. Check out the schnoz on that thing!

 

[Avindair]

MK has stared at the film for ten years and never reported the flipped scene at the beginning.

Oh, I'm just waiting for the Pattyphiles to come up with an explanation for that. Probably something ridiculous like "Well, clearly, you don't understand a thing about film processing!", followed by gratuitous use of the "head-bonking-on-wall" smiley, punctuated by some smart ass saying "Show me the monkey!", and finally ending with Paul having a meltdown.

How does this address the central issue?

It doesn't. It just makes them feel good about themselves.

Avindair

 

[Avindair]

Would someone in the industry explain to me how royalties work for images of makeup creations? If, for example, I created a wookie for a project, and an image of that wookie got used for a bunch of other projects, am I due royalties for use of that image?

Avindair

 

[William Parcher]

There is an obvious hypocracy and double standard used when evaluating the PGF. It is treated quite differently than any contemporary submission of photo or video evidence. In trying to establish the authenticity of modern visual evidence the Bigfooters demand "images or footage taken before and after the subject appears". You can see that going on in this thread. The more intriguing and compelling visual evidence draws a greater demand for this. Basically they are asking to see if there is evidence of hoaxery, or authenticity, that would be provided by seeing the "missing footage".

They seem to not care very much about ancillary PGF footage and a determined attempt to understand the sequence of events that would have been found on truly unedited film. For the PGF believers it seems that nothing much matters other than the Patty walk scene. Apparent edits and oddities like the instant beard cannot possibly be indicators of a hoax because the PGF is not a hoax.

 

[Drewbot]

Parcher-
I did a search on 'instant beard' and this is the only post about it.
Are you referring to the 'mouth movement' which is brought up in the Monsterquest episode?

Drew

 

[William Parcher]

Instant Beard

 

[Drewbot]

Instant Beard

OK- I understand your reference now.

Here is another thing that muddies the waters regarding the PGF.

The horse riding scenes are allegedly on the 'The 1st Roll', but, we don't know if that is a reference to the first unedited 100 foot roll, or an edited 25 foot version, possibly interspliced with footage from any number of 'B' Roll films that Roger had shot over the years, which has been mistitled, "THE FIRST ROLL"

I mean really who would actually know if those scenes were on the actual 1st Roll that contains the Patty footage. To me 1st Roll is actually, 'The original edited copy' that was given to John Green.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[William Parcher]

Of course Drew, and you've said it before yourself. It is quite possible that the only person other than Patterson (and the film lab) to see the removed footage was the garbage man that took the discarded scenes to the landfill. Instead of looking for the "missing footage" amongst those who have early copies, or in some safe deposit box, you instead need to look in a Yakima dump.

 

[LTC8K6]

Seeing the flipped frames is still very interesting, even though I'd heard of them before.
They sure don't speak about them very much, do they?

No wonder people had Patty walking the wrong way, and entering the woods in different ways, etc.

Didn't I read somewhere that Bob Titmus had direction trouble with Patty's tracks at first?

 

[Drewbot]

Another thing that will muddy the waters even more. If you are in the process of making a 'documentary' or a movie which you are shooting background footage for over the course of months. You are probably only going to have one outfit, but multiples sets of it. I'm guessing Having Gimlin wear the wig and the Guide get-up was so if they end up using some B-roll scenes shot in July in the final documentary, which much of which was shot in October, then they are wearing the same get-up.

I'm sure Patterson wore basically the same type of clothes whenever he was out filming. He was probably thinking ahead to the grand finale.

 

[Óðinn]

I'm a bit confused about the instant beard thing. Did Roger P or Bob G claim these clips were taken hours apart? I thought only Murphy claimed this. In which case, why is Murphy the authority here?

The horse riding scenes are allegedly on the 'The 1st Roll', but, we don't know if that is a reference to the first unedited 100 foot roll, or an edited 25 foot version, possibly interspliced with footage from any number of 'B' Roll films that Roger had shot over the years, which has been mistitled, "THE FIRST ROLL"

I mean really who would actually know if those scenes were on the actual 1st Roll that contains the Patty footage. To me 1st Roll is actually, 'The original edited copy' that was given to John Green.

If Green's copy is only 25' then I doubt there's much more than the "monster" scene. Has it been confirmed that Green's copy of the PGF has flipped images? I thought only footage spliced into documentaries showed the flipped images. Otherwise, there's no real way to establish what footage was on any of the original reels. Seems like a lot of hearsay to me. I'd like to pin this info down before making too many assumptions. There might not be any scrap footage before the "monster" scene if the copies started at the 75' mark of the master. So how do we confirm any of this?

 

[William Parcher]

I'm a bit confused about the instant beard thing. Did Roger P or Bob G claim these clips were taken hours apart? I thought only Murphy claimed this. In which case, why is Murphy the authority here?

Nobody can claim to be an authority on the PGF because there are so many errors made. Some are as simple as knowing that Jerry Merritt riding a horse is not Roger Patterson. What facts does Meldrum have that allow him to say the casts were displayed when Roger got back to Yakima? If I made the presumptive claim that the Patty cast display scene was filmed in Washington prior to October 14th - who would prove me wrong and how would they do it?

To me, it isn't such a big deal that Murphy simply got this wrong (filmed within hours of the plaster pouring). The big deal is how he tries to explain that he must be right about that.

Have a look. Should we put Murphy and Meldrum in a room and have them duke it out to decide what really happened? Skeptics and believers deserve the truth no matter what it is.

If Green's copy is only 25' then I doubt there's much more than the "monster" scene. Has it been confirmed that Green's copy of the PGF has flipped images? I thought only footage spliced into documentaries showed the flipped images. Otherwise, there's no real way to establish what footage was on any of the original reels. Seems like a lot of hearsay to me. I'd like to pin this info down before making too many assumptions. There might not be any scrap footage before the "monster" scene if the copies started at the 75' mark of the master. So how do we confirm any of this?

What needs to happen is that John Green needs to present every bit of film that he got from Patterson exactly as Roger delivered it to him. If this were a court case to make determinations about the evidence - everything he got from Roger Patterson would be subpoenaed and delivered to the court. The LMS DVD is not a substitute for that, because we know that it is already altered (at the minimum it was cropped and enlarged).

We are asking for proof that the PGF was not edited at least before Green received his copy. Green said that it wasn't. How could he know if Roger had not removed anything before making this claim? We are interested in that information as well. We are asking for proof in the same way that Melissa is now demanding that Dfoot or Long provide proof of Gimlin's police record (the plywood incident). Do we really deserve this double standard of critical examination and reversal of the burden of proof? Hell, we don't even have access to the primary evidence (the film(s) that Green holds) to even begin to do anything about it. Do you know how much work it is to try to re-establish facts about the PGF? I'm talking about falsehoods that are continuously passed on as fact. It took a skeptic poking around on the Internet and books to learn that we have footage of Bob Heironimus leading a packhorse in front of Jerry Merritt. Everyone thought it was Roger... but you sure didn't hear that it was Bob Heironimus riding in front. That was brought to you by skeptics with keen eyes and a desire to truly understand knowable facts that can be established surrounding the Patterson-Gimlin Film.