LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Why change the foliage to green, though?
Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film
- Thread starter Skeptical Greg
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bigfoot film patterson gimlin
- Status
Why change the foliage to green, though?
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
You got that right .
It's been altered in more ways than one..
Here's a frame from Greens copy of the film that LMS was derived from..
Looks green to me...
Last edited:
Mad Hom
Loose Cannon
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2006
- Messages
- 475
As I scanned the last few pages or so of this thread to bring myself back up to speed I've noticed that Crow sure enjoys painting with a broad brush doesn't he??
DFoot feels a Labor Day filming date makes sense so now everyone on the thread must by association feel the same. This is what Tru-Bleever has resorted to?? Never mind the fact that LTC,Parcher,DFoot,Dio et al continue to blow manhole cover sized holes in the case for The Con Man's flick being an actual really for real Hairy Biped of Unusual Size....just start an argument about the foliage....and side track the whole discussion.
Crow claims trees without leaves...from the frames I've seen on this thread that is horse puckey....like LTC said....the only bare trees I see are the dead ones and the lower reaches of the tall trees where nobody would presume there to be leaves in the first place....green,red,orange or otherwise.
DFoot feels a Labor Day filming date makes sense so now everyone on the thread must by association feel the same. This is what Tru-Bleever has resorted to?? Never mind the fact that LTC,Parcher,DFoot,Dio et al continue to blow manhole cover sized holes in the case for The Con Man's flick being an actual really for real Hairy Biped of Unusual Size....just start an argument about the foliage....and side track the whole discussion.
Crow claims trees without leaves...from the frames I've seen on this thread that is horse puckey....like LTC said....the only bare trees I see are the dead ones and the lower reaches of the tall trees where nobody would presume there to be leaves in the first place....green,red,orange or otherwise.
Last edited:
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,919
LTC8K6 wrote:
Applying a little common sense to the matter of when the film was actually shot......it would have been absolutely idiotic of Roger to shoot the film weeks ahead of when he claimed to have shot it....because the foliage in the film wouldn't have matched the foliage that was present when the film was first being viewed....only days after the 20th.
If Roger went through all the trouble he did, creating his masterpiece....which apparantly included mechanically-controlled fingers....
....why would he then risk having it easily exposed by a background which would have been obviously out-of-place, for the date claimed?
Applying a little common sense to the matter of when the film was actually shot......it would have been absolutely idiotic of Roger to shoot the film weeks ahead of when he claimed to have shot it....because the foliage in the film wouldn't have matched the foliage that was present when the film was first being viewed....only days after the 20th.
If Roger went through all the trouble he did, creating his masterpiece....which apparantly included mechanically-controlled fingers....
....why would he then risk having it easily exposed by a background which would have been obviously out-of-place, for the date claimed?
Mad Hom
Loose Cannon
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2006
- Messages
- 475
Well if the leaves had turned early that year.....what difference would have been evident??
Mad Hom
Loose Cannon
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2006
- Messages
- 475
Crow,shouldn't you be arguing this Labor Day business with DFoot...rather than with people who never said they believed a Labor Day filming date was set in stone?
Also,I'd point out that until an actual picture of Bluff Creek around Labor Day 1967 comes to light to either proves or disprove DFoot's opinion of that filming date making sense...it should stand as entirely plausible.
Dfoot
Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2006
- Messages
- 164
Crow Illogic--- I think I've clearly spelled it out for you time and again. I'm not claiming Bob H. said he was filmed on Labor Day. I gave you a timeline about when the filming HAD to have occurred. I should have known that even mentioning Labor Day weekend as being a possible chance for shenanigans due to the workers being out of the forest was more info than you could digest.
If I incorrectly typed something I do apologize. Prints were faked during August and Sept. The film was shot either at the end of Sept. or first part of Oct. and more tracks were laid.
As I said before, Gimlin and Patterson may have filmed some on Oct. 20th. But that would not have been included on the so-called 'original footage' that Green watched the following Sunday at DeAtley's. They MADE MORE TRACKS on Oct. 20th to make people think Patty had just walked there. That's what they spent their time doing on Oct. 20th - not filming Patty. The suit was long gone back to Yakima by then.
HERE IS WHAT I BELIEVE: I believe Bob Heironimus when he says he was filmed either the LAST WEEK OF SEPT. or the FIRST WEEK OF OCT.
I'm sorry that he didn't keep a diary or get some form of receipt for us. I can only confirm that the filming had to have taken place between Sept 4 (Labor Day) up till roughly Oct. 15, 1967. That would make the leaves the right colors and give DeAtley time to process and edit the film.
HERE'S WHAT I DON'T BELIEVE: I don't believe BOB GIMLIN when he says he came out of the forest between 8:30 and 9 pm and THEN went to Eureka to mail the package from the Post Office. That's impossible as the post office was closed and he was on the phone at 9:30 pm with the newspaper.
I do believe that Roger told AL HODGSON just after 6 pm that he'd just gotten back from mailing the package from the Eureka Post Office. I also know that this is impossible as the post office closed at 5 pm and there was no time to do what Roger and Bob said they did and make it there. Not to mention the fact that this is the opposite of what Gimlin has stated on audio tape to John Green.
And for the love of all things Patty... Sept./Oct./Nov.... those are the official fall color months. I've been to Bluff Creek during September and October. I've seen the colors. It all depends on the weather as to when colors change.
IF the PG film was shot with Heironimus during the first week of October, would that make you happy regarding your all important color scheme? It may well have been. It was not, however, shot on Friday Oct. 20th, processed within hours, and shown to Green and Dahinden on Sunday. That didn't happen.
NOW FOR THE BIZARRO CLIP OF THE WEEK ---
Over at BFF I discovered that the sub-heading to my thread had been changed by someone to read exactly what I'd told them it wasn't meant to say. They want to make it about "DFoot's suit" and it's never been solely about that.
I said the thread was created for anyone to leave information they felt was critical of the PG film. This includes track info, timelines, quotes from the various parties involved, and even suit-making items. Everything skeptical should be included and stored on the thread for interested researchers to consider.
I just got an email informing me that I was being monitored for daring to suggest that someone had completely changed my words to read something I never said. I am being "warned" once again. The reasoning behind this? Apparently I was challenging a moderator by daring to mention that my words had been re-written to say something I never said.
If you can find a more cult-like behavior - buy it.
GT/CS -- The 'DFoot Bashing' began back when I announced that my investigation into the film pointed to Patty clearly being a suit. Prior to that I was being asked to write articles about how Hollywood couldn't produce such a suit.
I said I needed to find out first because I wasn't there in the 60's. I attempted to take on all views honestly and see what was the truth of it. I tried the "Patty is real and here's why" approach first. Then I followed with the "Patty is a suit and here's why" approach. Most people look at the film with either of these ideas firmly entrenched and then try to prove their viewpoint. I didn't want to do that.
So I was a hero as long as I was coming from the pro-patty view. I was a villain when I approached it from the other angle. I became an enemy of the state when I declared my findings. The verdict: Patty is a suit worn by Heironimus. Gimlin is lying. The science attempting to support Patty is bogus.
My popularity has gone downhill ever since and I may soon find myself banned for life for posting such blasphemous materials. But I must admit, I've learned a lot more about how myths and cults operate since I began this little study. Interesting stuff.
BELOW... John Green's first image has Patty facing the wrong way. After some jerks and a flash she walks in the direction we have come to know. This cannot happen with an original film copy. It has to have been placed on a flatbed editor by someone and prepared in advance.
Funny how the mind won't allow you to notice something for over 40 years if you don't want to see it.
If I incorrectly typed something I do apologize. Prints were faked during August and Sept. The film was shot either at the end of Sept. or first part of Oct. and more tracks were laid.
As I said before, Gimlin and Patterson may have filmed some on Oct. 20th. But that would not have been included on the so-called 'original footage' that Green watched the following Sunday at DeAtley's. They MADE MORE TRACKS on Oct. 20th to make people think Patty had just walked there. That's what they spent their time doing on Oct. 20th - not filming Patty. The suit was long gone back to Yakima by then.
HERE IS WHAT I BELIEVE: I believe Bob Heironimus when he says he was filmed either the LAST WEEK OF SEPT. or the FIRST WEEK OF OCT.
I'm sorry that he didn't keep a diary or get some form of receipt for us. I can only confirm that the filming had to have taken place between Sept 4 (Labor Day) up till roughly Oct. 15, 1967. That would make the leaves the right colors and give DeAtley time to process and edit the film.
HERE'S WHAT I DON'T BELIEVE: I don't believe BOB GIMLIN when he says he came out of the forest between 8:30 and 9 pm and THEN went to Eureka to mail the package from the Post Office. That's impossible as the post office was closed and he was on the phone at 9:30 pm with the newspaper.
I do believe that Roger told AL HODGSON just after 6 pm that he'd just gotten back from mailing the package from the Eureka Post Office. I also know that this is impossible as the post office closed at 5 pm and there was no time to do what Roger and Bob said they did and make it there. Not to mention the fact that this is the opposite of what Gimlin has stated on audio tape to John Green.
And for the love of all things Patty... Sept./Oct./Nov.... those are the official fall color months. I've been to Bluff Creek during September and October. I've seen the colors. It all depends on the weather as to when colors change.
IF the PG film was shot with Heironimus during the first week of October, would that make you happy regarding your all important color scheme? It may well have been. It was not, however, shot on Friday Oct. 20th, processed within hours, and shown to Green and Dahinden on Sunday. That didn't happen.
NOW FOR THE BIZARRO CLIP OF THE WEEK ---
Over at BFF I discovered that the sub-heading to my thread had been changed by someone to read exactly what I'd told them it wasn't meant to say. They want to make it about "DFoot's suit" and it's never been solely about that.
I said the thread was created for anyone to leave information they felt was critical of the PG film. This includes track info, timelines, quotes from the various parties involved, and even suit-making items. Everything skeptical should be included and stored on the thread for interested researchers to consider.
I just got an email informing me that I was being monitored for daring to suggest that someone had completely changed my words to read something I never said. I am being "warned" once again. The reasoning behind this? Apparently I was challenging a moderator by daring to mention that my words had been re-written to say something I never said.
If you can find a more cult-like behavior - buy it.
GT/CS -- The 'DFoot Bashing' began back when I announced that my investigation into the film pointed to Patty clearly being a suit. Prior to that I was being asked to write articles about how Hollywood couldn't produce such a suit.
I said I needed to find out first because I wasn't there in the 60's. I attempted to take on all views honestly and see what was the truth of it. I tried the "Patty is real and here's why" approach first. Then I followed with the "Patty is a suit and here's why" approach. Most people look at the film with either of these ideas firmly entrenched and then try to prove their viewpoint. I didn't want to do that.
So I was a hero as long as I was coming from the pro-patty view. I was a villain when I approached it from the other angle. I became an enemy of the state when I declared my findings. The verdict: Patty is a suit worn by Heironimus. Gimlin is lying. The science attempting to support Patty is bogus.
My popularity has gone downhill ever since and I may soon find myself banned for life for posting such blasphemous materials. But I must admit, I've learned a lot more about how myths and cults operate since I began this little study. Interesting stuff.
BELOW... John Green's first image has Patty facing the wrong way. After some jerks and a flash she walks in the direction we have come to know. This cannot happen with an original film copy. It has to have been placed on a flatbed editor by someone and prepared in advance.
Funny how the mind won't allow you to notice something for over 40 years if you don't want to see it.
Last edited:
Mad Hom
Loose Cannon
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2006
- Messages
- 475
I've never bought into the Gimlin was duped BS....I've felt for a long while that for this hoax to work Gimlin had to be a part of it.
Tru-Bleever just loves to query as to why a person would hold onto a lie for so long...I'd respond by saying it's been a long time...I'm sure Gimlin has quite a few NEW friends and neighbors...if tomorrow he says..."Yep...it's all crap....I was lying...Roger made it up" He risks being ostracized by everyone who knows him as it would be all over the interweb and everyone even his third cousins twice removed would know that Uncle Bob was a dirty stinking liar....if he keeps up the lie...everyone loves him....especially Bigfoot Fan...and he can continue getting free coffee and danishs at all the Bigfeetsus symposiums.
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,919
Dfoot wrote:
I haven't read everything that's been posted concerning the flipped image on Green's copy of the film....so, what is the significance of this frame being reversed?
I haven't read everything that's been posted concerning the flipped image on Green's copy of the film....so, what is the significance of this frame being reversed?
SweatyYeti
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,919
Mad Hom wrote:
In addition.....if Bob Gimlin decided to write a book detailing how the hoax was planned, how the suit was made, and who was in it, etc.....he risks making a lot of money.
Also....Bob had some incentive to spill-the-beans, a long time ago, when Roger shafted him for $1000.....but he didn't. And that was long before Bob made all his wonderful new friends....and got his free coffee.
In addition.....if Bob Gimlin decided to write a book detailing how the hoax was planned, how the suit was made, and who was in it, etc.....he risks making a lot of money.
Also....Bob had some incentive to spill-the-beans, a long time ago, when Roger shafted him for $1000.....but he didn't. And that was long before Bob made all his wonderful new friends....and got his free coffee.
Last edited:
Mad Hom
Loose Cannon
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2006
- Messages
- 475
In addition.....if Bob Gimlin decided to write a book detailing how the hoax was planned, how the suit was made, and who was in it, etc.....he risks making a lot of money.
Why not just write the book under a pseudonym and than turn around and help Bigfoot Fan deny it's accuracy?? Kill two Hairy Bipeds with one stone...so to speak.That way he get's his big bucks and his free danishes.
Are we talking about Bob G or Bob H here? Are you saying it's Bob G who says Roger shafted him for $1,000.00? I seem to recall Bob H claiming this but refresh my memory here Sweetsy.. cuz if it is Bob G and based on the fact that he is probably lying through his incisors about the PGF....why on earth should we believe anything he says about anything?
Crowlogic
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,147
Dfoot
You'e made an admirable stab at this thing. Better than most. But when I read your quote about the Labor Day Weekend filmshoot on the BBF my radar came on. I've looked at the PGF as many times as anyone and I've looked for seams, zippers, turds, mermaids you name it. But that it wasn't shot during the time of year as originally stated (read mid late October) has never been even a remote question to me. I understand that you need a way reconcile the development of the film in terms of the rapidity that it apparantly was done. But Bob H's. Labor Day statement is pretty hard to swallow in that no one has ever looked at the film and said that it looked earlier in the season. As for the flipped frames they really don't prove anything except that an editor goofed. It would be far more telling if the flipped frame was somehow of a different scene but its simply the reverse of an existing frame that follows the normal direction of the film. In my own expierence not long ago I gave a professional photographer a collection of family photos to put on CD. I found after viewing the CD that one of the photos was reversed. It happens and not infrequently.
You'e made an admirable stab at this thing. Better than most. But when I read your quote about the Labor Day Weekend filmshoot on the BBF my radar came on. I've looked at the PGF as many times as anyone and I've looked for seams, zippers, turds, mermaids you name it. But that it wasn't shot during the time of year as originally stated (read mid late October) has never been even a remote question to me. I understand that you need a way reconcile the development of the film in terms of the rapidity that it apparantly was done. But Bob H's. Labor Day statement is pretty hard to swallow in that no one has ever looked at the film and said that it looked earlier in the season. As for the flipped frames they really don't prove anything except that an editor goofed. It would be far more telling if the flipped frame was somehow of a different scene but its simply the reverse of an existing frame that follows the normal direction of the film. In my own expierence not long ago I gave a professional photographer a collection of family photos to put on CD. I found after viewing the CD that one of the photos was reversed. It happens and not infrequently.
Last edited:
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,472
This is what Bob Heironimus says in the Tom Biscardi radio show, March 2007:
Roger and Bob Gimlin arrived at Bluff Creek three days before BH did, in order to find a spot to film BH in the suit. P&G arrived on a Sunday, and BH arrived on a Wednesday. The following morning after BH arrived (a Thursday), they rode the horses to the spot while transporting the suit in a "hop sack" (named for carrying hops - as in beer hops I imagine). P&G helped BH put on the suit. Roger gave general directions about where to walk and told BH to turn and look back at him at a certain location in the walk path.
BH: "...this was October. Around the first week of October, second week of October, whatever it was..."
"It was hot." BH is speaking of the temperature that day. He also mentions that it was very hot inside the suit.
So, Bob Heironimus says that it was shot on a Thursday - but he does not say (seems not to recall) if it was the first week, or the second week of October.
Given this, Bob Heironimus is saying that the film of him wearing the suit at Bluff Creek was taken on either October 5, or October 12.
Here is is again for anyone to cut and paste anywhere they want on the World Wide Web...
On March 14, 2007, during the Tom Biscardi "Bigfoot Live" radio show, Bob Heironimus said that Roger Patterson filmed him walking in a Bigfoot suit across a sandbar at Bluff Creek, California on either October 5, 1967, or October 12, 1967.
Roger and Bob Gimlin arrived at Bluff Creek three days before BH did, in order to find a spot to film BH in the suit. P&G arrived on a Sunday, and BH arrived on a Wednesday. The following morning after BH arrived (a Thursday), they rode the horses to the spot while transporting the suit in a "hop sack" (named for carrying hops - as in beer hops I imagine). P&G helped BH put on the suit. Roger gave general directions about where to walk and told BH to turn and look back at him at a certain location in the walk path.
BH: "...this was October. Around the first week of October, second week of October, whatever it was..."
"It was hot." BH is speaking of the temperature that day. He also mentions that it was very hot inside the suit.
So, Bob Heironimus says that it was shot on a Thursday - but he does not say (seems not to recall) if it was the first week, or the second week of October.
Given this, Bob Heironimus is saying that the film of him wearing the suit at Bluff Creek was taken on either October 5, or October 12.
Here is is again for anyone to cut and paste anywhere they want on the World Wide Web...
On March 14, 2007, during the Tom Biscardi "Bigfoot Live" radio show, Bob Heironimus said that Roger Patterson filmed him walking in a Bigfoot suit across a sandbar at Bluff Creek, California on either October 5, 1967, or October 12, 1967.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Sweaty,
Either...
1) Stick your fingers on the keyboard and type the handle of the regular member who asserts that mechanically-controlled fingers were used in the PGF.
And/Or...
2) Stick your fingers on the keyboard and type an explanation as to why mechanically-controlled fingers are the most likely explanation for your two frame comparison if the PGF subject is indeed a man in a suit.
If you can not...
Spare us from ever having to suffer your finger bending idiocy again.
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,472
PS: BH's testimony does not include the possibility of it being the third week of October, or anytime later. Nor does he offer the possibility that it was filmed before the first week of October. He seems to have narrowed the dates to October 5, or October 12.
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Stale, over-used, poorly thought bigfoot enthusiast wishful thinking. Does not account for...In addition.....if Bob Gimlin decided to write a book detailing how the hoax was planned, how the suit was made, and who was in it, etc.....he risks making a lot of money.
Also....Bob had some incentive to spill-the-beans, a long time ago, when Roger shafted him for $1000.....but he didn't. And that was long before Bob made all his wonderful new friends....and got his free coffee.
1) Pride. The concept that Gimlin would consider sticking to the story and keeping his head down preferable to the thought of taking some quick money and forever being labeled a hoaxer.
2) Loved ones. Imagine Gimlin does consider spilling the beans but a loved one such as his wife refuses to have anything to do with all the unwanted attention. To the extent that doing so would threaten the marriage. Remember, we do know that Gimlin has said his wife threatened divorce of the bigfoot shenanigans.
You fanatics are so desperate to have your fantasy beast be real that you can't be bothered to think the human explanations through. Who are the real denialists?
And no, Gimlin appearing at bigfoot conferences now and then decades later with people who call him an 'American Legend' and hold him as an icon beyond suspicion does not contradict those explanations.
One does take particular note that Heironimus actively seeks to appear with Gimlin to do interviews while Gimlin refuses. Luckily for Gimlin he has his worshippers to make excuses for him.
Ah hell, Sweaty, why did you have to post that picture again?
I know everyone will be disappointed if I don't do this so here goes, again.
Hey Sweaty, did you happen to see the perfectly straight line on Patty's wrist? Wow, that sure looks like a band between the sleeve and the glove, doesn't it?
Game, set, match. It's a bloke in a suit. No question about it. The wrist band proves it.
For the sake of the other readers on this site, and the Patty faithful, please don't post that picture again. Every time you post it I am compelled to call you on your lack of judgement in posting a picture that debunks your belief, and everyone's getting a little tired of this game!
Last edited:
kitakaze
Resident DJ/NSA Supermole
Crowlogic, you bring bigfoot apologism to new heights.
Yeah, that Heironimus. What a joker, hey, guys? Ho ho... Here comes another one. Will these guys never learn? Ha ha!
What's that?
No other has claimed to be in the suit?
Heironimus is in Patterson's film?
*crickets*
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,472
Heironimus and Gimlin have been, and remain, friends in real life and that friendship started years before 1967. They have lived very close to each other on same street in Yakima for decades. On the XZone radio show last year, BH says he spoke to BG and told him that he was going public with his confession. BG told him that he would not confess to the hoax himself. BH said that when he went public with his confession, his friendship chilled with BG. But BH went on to say that in more recent years, and up to at least the time of the XZone show, their friendship has renewed. BH seems to still encourage BG to confess to the hoax from time to time, but Gimlin still doesn't want to.
So, according to BH, they remain friends and occasionally run into each other around town - and they talk as friends would. But BH just can't get BG to make the confession.
After hearing that, it's no wonder that Gimlin won't do a public interview or debate with Heironimus. The Bigfooters should encourage Gimlin to do this. I can't think of any better way to have Gimlin show that Heironimus was not in that suit. He should be able to destroy Bob Heironimus in debate if he really wasn't the guy in the suit. Ask Bob Gimlin to do this before he passes away. It should not be a problem for either of them because they remain friends in real life.
So, according to BH, they remain friends and occasionally run into each other around town - and they talk as friends would. But BH just can't get BG to make the confession.
After hearing that, it's no wonder that Gimlin won't do a public interview or debate with Heironimus. The Bigfooters should encourage Gimlin to do this. I can't think of any better way to have Gimlin show that Heironimus was not in that suit. He should be able to destroy Bob Heironimus in debate if he really wasn't the guy in the suit. Ask Bob Gimlin to do this before he passes away. It should not be a problem for either of them because they remain friends in real life.
- Status