Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[manofthesea]

Really, that proves why blood underground or anywhere not under rain / wind stay forever without being degraded... And even better resist in oxygen rich environment to cold - hot cycle. Like under a porch.

MOS, where should i start laughing ? Blood left drying under a unprotected place will degrade with time, for many different reason non bleach related (bacterial attack for example). In a really protected place, like a home inside the fiber of a carpet, it can stays for years, but even there it will degrade to the point that part of the DNA will not be readable anymore. As a rule all biological material sooner or later degrade (and blood is not that rich in DNA anyway to start with, IIRC my biology us mammalian don't have DNA in our red cell). But on a NAIL outside, through winter and summer name me Thomas the doubter. And even if I was giving you in that some blood was left, it does not explain why a mega-special-uper-duper new method was needed to show blood presence, methoid which by the way was not peer reviewed.

Sorry, I'm the one laughing. You guys crack me up.

 

[Blackdog]

The Province, October 25, 1967

“The thing was across the creek beside the road, about 50 yards away. I ran down to the creek and got on a high sandbar to film it.” Roger Patterson

Check out the trail/old road on the W side of the Creek that goes to Ferris Camp. There are about 20 of these Camps (some mines some CCC Camps) in the Bluff Creek area at that time. I have yet to discover one sighting in the area prior 1958. Kind of makes me wonder.

Blackdog, any ideas?


m

PGF Area 1936 Map
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_826447ba31c5e3e09.jpg

Yeah, what does, "The thing was across the creek beside the road,..." mean? Aren't those two places exclusive?

To be honest I don't know why anyone believes anything at this point.

The film could have been made just about anywhere that looks similar (and that's quite a few places) and probably any late summer or fall day previous to the alleged date. The timeline for developing and the first showing of the film makes no sense at all and the testimony from P&G, the follow up investigation by Titmus and the rest was so shoddy that I have no idea how any of it can be taken seriously. And I do agree that it was not a continuous film, there is evidence, even in LMS, that there are breaks in the filming despite the claims of no breaks or editing.

Let's imagine, just for a second, that the film does show a real sasquatch, it would be so FUBARed that unless you are living on blind faith alone a reasonable person cannot accept it on whatever merits it may have.

 

[Blackdog]

Sorry, I'm the one laughing. You guys crack me up.

I guess that's just to hide your ignorance.
Maybe you should actually take the time to understand what you're trying to talking about and then maybe your opinion will be taken seriously.

 

[Crowlogic]

Somewhere along the line I've completly lost track of where this thread is going. WP has posted so many early PGF frames and Indian Bob with funny rifles and maps and hunting licenses lever action bolt action Bobsquatch's old Corvette and diagrams but it escapes me. So has anything been determined yet? What is the rifle dialogue driving at and what are the early frames trying to prove? Of it all the early frames the one of Patty seemingly standing still pondering the awesome nature of existance is worth examination. After all Bob H was known to have been a deep thinker and I can imagine Roge and Gimmy having to constantly remind him to keep it moving Bob keep it moving Bob the universe will wait for you to decide on its meaning we've got a film here to shoot and Roger's gotta get the camera back before they put out another bloody warrant on him!

 

[manofthesea]

I guess that's just to hide your ignorance.
Maybe you should actually take the time to understand what you're trying to talking about and then maybe your opinion will be taken seriously.

The only thing ignorant in this thread is the study of the PGF. And those studying it.

I was just trying to inject a little bit of real bigfoot here. Sorry pal.

 

[manofthesea]

Why don't you come on over to the Native American thread and display some of the depth of your bigfoot knowledge. The study of historical accounts and references to bigfoot. Thanx.

 

[mangler]

Blackdog,

I thought the old road/trail thing was interesting I never new until resently that there was in fact a road/heavily used trail on the W side of the Creek. My line of thought is that maybe Patterson saw evidence of this and included it in one of the original storylines but the great tracker Titmus was clueless, I could find that quite amusing. One thing I do find quite amusing is that Bob and Roger are supposedly in this big rush to get back at the site to make the casts and they take the horses. Why in gods name don’t they just drive up the spur road on the E side of the creek like Laverty and everyone else?

Anyway the old map post wasn’t really directed at you. The reference to you was because I am curious about your thoughts on the map that I drew. I apologize for the confusion.



m

 

[SweatyYeti]

Somewhere along the line I've completly lost track of where this thread is going. WP has posted so many early PGF frames and Indian Bob with funny rifles and maps and hunting licenses lever action bolt action Bobsquatch's old Corvette and diagrams but it escapes me. So has anything been determined yet? What is the rifle dialogue driving at and what are the early frames trying to prove? Of it all the early frames the one of Patty seemingly standing still pondering the awesome nature of existance is worth examination. After all Bob H was known to have been a deep thinker and I can imagine Roge and Gimmy having to constantly remind him to keep it moving Bob keep it moving Bob the universe will wait for you to decide on its meaning we've got a film here to shoot and Roger's gotta get the camera back before they put out another bloody warrant on him!

It seems to me, Crowlogic, that everything they're talking about indicates the film is a hoax.

But, just as a reminder of the huge difference in "realism" between Patty and your typical "Charlie-in-the suit"....

Notice how the "Bigfoot" on the right was instantly recognizable as a suit, as soon as you saw it....while the potential Bigfoot on the left is still being analysed, discussed, and pondered...some 40 years after first being seen.

Huge difference.

 

[Gravy]

Notice how the "Bigfoot" on the right was instantly recognizable as a suit, as soon as you saw it....while the potential Bigfoot on the left is still being analysed, discussed, and pondered...some 40 years after first being seen.

"Still being analysed," yes. By crackpots, fools, and the deliberately ignorant.

Huge difference.

Indeed it is: one you should learn to recognize.

 

[William Parcher]

"Still being analysed," yes. By crackpots, fools, and the deliberately ignorant.

You forgot entrepreneurs with an eye on financial profits.

 

[kitakaze]

It seems to me, Crowlogic, that everything they're talking about indicates the film is a hoax.

But, just as a reminder of the huge difference in "realism" between Patty and your typical "Charlie-in-the suit"....

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/PattyandJoke2.jpg[/qimg]


Notice how the "Bigfoot" on the right was instantly recognizable as a suit, as soon as you saw it....while the potential Bigfoot on the left is still being analysed, discussed, and pondered...some 40 years after first being seen.

Huge difference.

It doesn't matter how many times you chuck it, Sweaty. The poo don't fly. Your pitch is weak, your ammo is stinky. You can say 'realism' 'til your blue in the face, that doesn't make it so. When I guy with a Martian architecture photo collection starts talking to me about realism, I just kinda nod and chuckle.

All three pictures look ridiculous, BTW.

 

[kitakaze]

It seems to me, Crowlogic, that everything they're talking about indicates the film is a hoax.

This one's just for Sweaty because I know he'll love it:

There's not one single thing that reliably indicates a living sasquatch over a man in a suit.

Just try it. Everything you say will be blown out of the water by its own fallaciousness, just as it has countless times before.

I predict some forthcoming 'failure to reproduce blah blah blah' silliness. Meanwhile analysis of the PGF indicating a hoax your bigfoot dreams prevent you from dealing with, even as other proponents are starting to get it, continues to break the house that footers built.

 

[clayflingythingy]

All this talk about differences in the account brings to mind that some pages back someone posted that BG once stated maybe he was hoaxed by RP. That is grade A mule milk since BG would have had to have been in on the hoax.

What I would like to know is what were the circumstance under which he made his "maybe I was hoaxed" statement? Was it on a TV program? At a BF conference? Was BG being pushed hard by a skeptical interviewer? What was his facial expression and body language as he made his statement?

Lastly, could BG's "I may have been hoaxed" statement be reasonably construed as a confession? BG's way of getting a skeptical interviewer off his back by saying "I may have been hoaxed", but what I am really saying is "yes, PGF is a hoax, I can't admit it, you know I can't admit it, so I'm giving you as much as I can".

I find this statement by BG that he may have been hoaxed more curious than the differing accounts given by both RP and BG.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/PattyandJoke2.jpg

The funniest thing to me is that Sweaty has no idea which one looks like an actual sasquatch.

 

[Drewbot]

I wouldn't put it past Roger, to have borrowed a prop musket for the photo shoot.

Geno, it was you who has the Argosy magazine right? Do they give a photo credit for the cover? I'm wondering if that there is an archive of Argosy's old photos. Back then, I think the magazines bought the pictures outright, and the photographer gave up his rights to them.

 

[kitakaze]

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/PattyandJoke2.jpg

The funniest thing to me is that Sweaty has no idea which one looks like an actual sasquatch.

What makes the subject in the bottom right easily identifiable as a man in a suit?

Or even better, the one that's really paralyzing for Sweaty - What makes the subject in Harley Hoffman video easily identifiable as a man in a suit? Rippling muscles, short glossy hair, the arms...

Give it your best shot, Sweaty.

 

[kitakaze]

I wouldn't put it past Roger, to have borrowed a prop musket for the photo shoot.

I think the idea that Gimlin wouldn't have recognized a prop musket as such is unreasonable.

 

[Drewbot]

I think the idea that Gimlin wouldn't have recognized a prop musket as such is unreasonable.

Sorry- I was referring only to the Argosy Magazine Cover.

 

[kitakaze]

Sorry- I was referring only to the Argosy Magazine Cover.

Ah, I thought you were responding to the post by Clay... about BG being hoaxed by RP.

Now given Patterson's known behaviour, that wouldn't be implausible at all (the prop musket, I mean).

I'm really wondering these days if anyone without some form of attachment to bigfoot and possessing a good knowledge of Patterson's antics could ever for a moment seriously think he did indeed film a living sasquatch.

 

[William Parcher]

I wouldn't put it past Roger, to have borrowed a prop musket for the photo shoot.

Geno, it was you who has the Argosy magazine right? Do they give a photo credit for the cover? I'm wondering if that there is an archive of Argosy's old photos. Back then, I think the magazines bought the pictures outright, and the photographer gave up his rights to them.

What is most interesting to me about this photo is that Roger Patterson is sitting on Bob Heironimus' horse (Chico). The packhorse (black socks, but we can't see if it has a blaze) in this shot is probably one of two different black-socked horses that Roger can be seen riding in various stills and film. One of those black-socked horses has a blaze, and the other doesn't. When we see Roger riding at Bluff Creek (the flipped pull-to-a-stop scene) he is on the one without the blaze.

Throughout various stills and filmed scenes we keep seeing a small white pony used as a packhorse. This is actually Roger's personal pony named Peanuts. He used to haul it around inside his mini-van. This little white pony suited the tiny stature of Patterson. But Patterson would not ever be seen riding this pony in any footages or stills related to his Bigfoot documentary. I suspect that this was because it looked silly to be riding this dinky pony - especially so if it were in the same scene as other actors on their quarter horses.

But what is the deal with Argosy cover Roger sitting on Heironimus' horse, instead of that black-socked packhorse? More importantly... what is the deal with confessing Bob Heironimus saying that P&G actually borrowed Chico when they went to Bluff Creek to film Bob in the suit?

Well, it gets pretty juicy...

From BFF thread...

2 years later it is finally made public that Bob Gimlin acknowledged Bob H's horse was there at the filmsite. This was after it was asked of one of the most prominent researchers in the field, who responded it wasn't important. It is important, and the fact it was answered at that time is also important.

I don't think he ever denied it. It's just that he doesn't issue statements or give interviews, and therefore few Bigfooters called him up to ask questions. What I remember reading in the aftermath of the book's publication was a statement from one of the big-name footers, I think John Green, who had talked to Gimlin, that the return of BH's horse (and possibly the borrowing of it--I don't remember) had happened in quite a different manner than what BH had described. (No detail was given. But Green could be asked if Gimlin told him then that Chico had been borrowed from BH.) I bet there's a post in a thread here that contains this statement of Green's. This would implicitly acknowledge that Chico was employed.

So I don't find it suspicious that it's "news" that Chico was at Bluff Creek. It was just news to Chris Murphy, when he finally learned it from Gimlin, and to most of the rest of us, though not to me. (Not in December 2006, I mean, when Murphy questioned Gimlin. Previously, in my “A Horse of a Different Color” post, I’d made erroneous statements about the horses; but Chris set me straight, before December, in answer to my questions.)

Gimlin should have issued a more comprehensive statement at the start. But what he may be doing, by lying low, is following a lawyer's advice and trying to entice a deep-pockets defendant like Fox to broadcast and endorse BH's claims. (Alternatively, BH has "got something" on Gimlin (unrelated to the PGF) and Gimlin doesn't want to inflame him.)

Long interviewed Gimlin for 45 minutes (p. 423) and, although "Gimlin denied over and over again every aspect of Heironimus's story," it's unlikely he denied that BH's horse Chico was there. Chico (seen on p. 39 of Long's book) has a distinctive broad blaze and white foreleg-socks, and is unusually tall--16 hands. She could be identified from the film. If Gimlin had denied that Chico was present, Long could really have nailed him. Since Long didn't, I infer that Gimlin didn't deny that.

Apparently this horse-borrowing was common. Gimlin boarded people's horses for them. Heironimus has said several times that he and Gimlin used to get on horses and go up in the mountains. Patterson was astride Chico in the Feb. 1968 Argosy cover photo, a photo that according to Pat Patterson was shot months before the PGF. (Probably during filming of his "Bigfoot Documentary" near the South fork of the Ahtanum.) So it wouldn't have been a big deal to have borrowed that horse.

And there was a non-suspicious reason for borrowing Chico: BH has called Chico "a good horse in the mountains" (for what reason I don't know) and that she "didn't know how to buck," a definite plus when tracking Bigfoots. Gimlin was astride Chico during the encounter, and sure enough he was able to keep control of her and even force her to cross the creek after Patty. The other two horses took fright and ran off.

Bob Heironimus actually says that Patterson was riding Chico when they arrived on horseback at the sandbar to film him in the suit. BH is confessing that there was no genuine Bigfoot encounter at all, and that it was just a filmed staged event. Roger intentionally shook the camera to simulate a chaotic and spontaneous encounter with a real Bigfoot.

The post stated that Gimlin didn't remember, and that it wasn't important whether or not Bob H's horse was there. It is important, it corroborates Bob H's story, and it shouldn't have been dismissed with a "Move along folks, nothing to see here" attitude.

That puts doubt in my mind, both in the credibility of the investigator and the witness of the filming. It also puts weight in Bob H's story.

What post? Please give a link or a clue.

Out of respect for privacy I sent you the link.

You and I both know this isn't the first time information that would cast doubt on the films authenticity has been withheld from the public.

And that was pretty much the end of the conversation.