Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/pgf_history.htm

Murphy appears to be claiming that the first 76 feet were shot on a different day, but Roger is clear in his 1967 radio interview that they had not taken any film of the area yet, and he decided to do so that day.

W: Now what were you doing filming at that particular time on the pack horse trip?

R: Well, we hadn't taken any and I thought right of that particular area there, before, and it was a beautiful area right in there, there was some of the .
Click to expand...
 
LTC8K6 said:
Murphy has Peanut as the dark pony being held by Dahinden and he says Peanut wasn't there for the PGF trip.
Click to expand...

Murphy said:
In this photograph, we see Rene Dahinden on the left with Roger's Welsh pony which I believe is "Peanuts."
Click to expand...

LTC said:
I'd like to figure out for sure which one is Peanut, was Peanut at Bluff Creek, if not, then what horse is the pack horse?
Click to expand...

Join the club.
 
So how can the shadows be so long in those shots of Bluff Creek scenery and the horses, if they didn't set out until it was nearly noon?

The shadows look roughly as long as Patty's shadow.

A 3:30 Patty encounter makes sense with the shadows. A 1:30 encounter doesn't.
 
  • Patterson & Gimlin claimed many dozens of factual circumstances involved with the filming of a Bigfoot... they can't all be falsehoods.

  • Hundreds of smart people believe that the PGF is authentic... they can't all be wrong.

  • Gimlin had long thick Apache hair... those strands can't all be synthetic.
 
Hitch said:
Is it really significantly worse than the one with the obviously fake rigid fur-covered breasts?
Click to expand...


Well, yes...it is.

This is an excerpt from the link in LTC's post....

On October 26, 1967, the film was shown at the University of British Columbia (U.B.C.). Two screenings were conducted. The first screening was given to University scientists only. The second screening was to university scientists and Don Abbott and Frank Beebe (both of the British Columbia Provincial Museum).
Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin were at both sessions to answer questions. They also showed the audience the casts of the footprints found at the film site.
The university scientists were under strict orders not to comment one way or the other on the authenticity of the film. To this day, there has been no official comment from this group.
Click to expand...


I'm willing to bet that if those scientists from the University had been shown a video of this fella, back in '67.....

PattyandJoke3.jpg


....they WOULD have had an official comment...about 10 seconds after the screening started. ;)

It might have gone something like this....

"ARE YOU ------- KIDDING US BUDDY???!!!" :eye-poppi


:)
 
Last edited:
William Parcher said:
Join the club.
Click to expand...

And don't forget " Honest As The Day is Long " Gimlin, says Roger is riding a little horse, that would fit in the VW bus ...

I'm going to see what the consensus is at BFF about the scenery shots, and if they were supposed to have been shot the same day Patty was ..

The ' Tent Pole ' shot, looks like it was made around mid-day ( I'm having trouble seeing any shadows at all - no length to them ) , the shadows in the Patty footage look longer ...

Houston we have a problem ..

b45d3023.jpg
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Ivan Marx had a worse suit sweaty, and it worked just fine. If those kids had kept quiet about recognizing the location, Marx's film might have been next in line to the PGF. The best of the footers accepted Marx's film as real.
 
The university scientists were under strict orders not to comment one way or the other on the authenticity of the film.
Click to expand...

Because it was a hoax and bad publicity would ruin the profits. No other reason to have such a condition. An honest man would welcome the criticism and counter it with evidence about the day of the filming to show that the events really happened. He'd take the critics to the site and show them where he was and what he did, where he pointed the camera, etc.
 
Last edited:
LTC8K6 said:
Ivan Marx had a worse suit sweaty, and it worked just fine. If those kids had kept quiet about recognizing the location, Marx's film might have been next in line to the PGF. The best of the footers accepted Marx's film as real.
Click to expand...


I guess you're refering to this laughable suit....

AnotherJoke1.jpg



It's fun to play make-believe, LTC....but I seriously doubt that that suit ever impressed a group of scientists.

But getting back to the point I made in my previous post.....do you dispute what I said, that the University scientists would have laughed-off a film of that ridiculously lame suit...as soon as they saw it?
Or do you think they would have watched it, and then withheld their judgment??
 
SweatyYeti said:
I'm willing to bet that if those scientists from the University had been shown a video of this fella, back in '67.....

[qimg]http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/SweatyYeti/PattyandJoke3.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...
What makes the subject in the bottom photo clearly identifiable as a man in a suit?

What makes the subject in the Harley Hoffman video easily identifiable as a man in a suit?

Can you give a clear, unambiguous, detailed explanation of what makes these subjects easily identifiable as men in suits?

Someone interested in sincere critical inquiry, not scoring points, appeals to authority, appeals to ignorance, would not evade these questions.
 
Last edited:
I guess you're refering to this laughable suit....
Click to expand...

Try again, Sweaty. I'm talking about the Marx suit and movie than John Green and Rene Dahinden called authentic. The one that was revealed only when some kids told Peter Byrne that they knew the location shown in the film and took him to it.

Let's not forget the other suits that have fooled footers. Sonoma, Snow walker, etc.

Practically anyone who made any real effort has been able to convince footers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom